East of Durham: The Incredible Story of Human Evolution

_{Cornelius Hunter

December 2, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

Imagine if Galileo had built his telescope from parts that had been around for centuries, or if the Wright Brothers had built their airplane from parts that were just lying around. As silly as that sounds, this is precisely what evolutionists must conclude about how evolution works. Biology abounds with complexities which even evolutionists admit could not have evolved in a straightforward way. Instead, evolutionists must conclude that the various parts and components, that comprise biology’s complex structures, had already evolved for some other purpose. Then, as luck would have it, those parts just happened to fit together to form a fantastic, new, incredible design. And this mythical process, which evolutionists credulously refer to as preadaptation, must have occurred over and over and over throughout evolutionary history. Some guys have all the luck. Read more

Comments

gpuccio: I agree that the question of animal behavior and instinct is difficult. If beaver dams meet minimal criteria for design detection (although we could perhaps debate the point), would you then say that beaver dams were designed, but not by the beavers? In other words, would we look to the beaver's instinct and conclude that whoever programmed that instinct is the real designer of the dams? I realize we don't have a great handle on what instinct is or how it is controlled, but on the reasonable assumption that it arises from the beaver's physical makeup -- receiving signals from the environment, initiation, feedback and control systems within the organism -- would it be reasonable to say that whoever set up the system and the programming is the real designer? If so, then in that sense perhaps we are suggesting that animal instinct is really another form of progamming, similiar to the computer (#2 in your response)?Eric Anderson_{December 8, 2011
December
12
Dec
8
08
2011
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

gpuccio: I think you've outlined some very thoughtful and helpful ideas in terms of defining what an intelligent agent is. Thanks.Eric Anderson_{December 8, 2011
December
12
Dec
8
08
2011
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

Thanks, englishmaninistanbul:
Leaving that aside, as I understand it the logic goes, “If DNA does in fact have a designer, it is logical to assume that that designer would not have left whole chunks of genome with no function.” Playing Devil’s advocate, I still have trouble seeing why that assumption is any different to the “no designer worth his salt” argument that is so often wielded against ID, which, it is effectively argued, is fundamentally philosophical in nature and therefore scientifically moot.
Two points: First, yes, there is an aspect of expectation with regard to designed things. Designed things can break down or degrade; they can also be imperfect or strange or unusual or quirky from the outset. But in our uniform and repeated experience, things designed are heavily characterized by function, not junk. We also have no experience with any highly complex integrated system that happens to function just wonderfully while peeking out from a sea of detritus, but that is what the junk DNA proponents would have us believe. It goes against experience. So yes, there is an expectation from what we know about other designed things. This is not the only reason to suspect little junk, however. In the case of junk DNA there are also other reasons to suspect function, as noted in my last comment (particularly point 2) at the end of this thread: https://uncommondescent.com/junk-dna/vidthe-debate-that-never-was-craig-vs-dawkins-junk-dna-does-show-up-though/ Second, the ID view is not analogous to the philosophically-based “bad design” argument. No ID proponent is arguing that design has to meet some artificial expectation of “perfect” design. Further, machines break, degrade. Bad design, in the limited sense of non-functional design, is an empirical issue that can be studied. "Bad design" in the sense of arguing that there should be “perfect design” or “no designer worth his salt” comments are non-scientific philosophical judgments. ID acknowledges the possibility of imperfect design. ID acknowledges the possibility of breakage, etc. ID doesn’t try to get into the designer’s head and decide whether the designer is “perfect” or even argue that there is such a thing as “perfect” design. Our uniform and repeated experience suggests that it is logical to assume an overall modicum of function, and it is perfectly valid to infer from that experience that things designed will exhibit overall function. This inference is not parallel to the typical bad design argument, which tries to get into the mind of some putative creator and say what the creator would or would not do. Furthermore, the bad design argument in biology has a very bad history, as it has almost universally turned out to be wrong as we learn more.
An intelligent agent is a discrete entity that autonomically acts to disrupt the operation of known chemical and physical laws.
I’ll defer to pguccio or Upright Biped for a moment on the definition, but just want to mention that there is no reason to suggest that a designer would “disrupt” the operation of known chemical and physical laws. When an aerospace engineer designs and builds an airplane to soar above the Earth, he doesn’t disrupt the law of gravity. He uses it, in conjunction with other known principles of aerodynamics and attributes of thrust, lift, weight, etc. to achieve a purpose. I don’t mean to be pedantic on this point, but I’ve seen lots of people (including Denton early on, unfortunately) fall into the trap of thinking that design is somehow unpalatable in certain situations because it would be an act in violation of the "laws of nature,” so I just want to make sure your definition isn’t heading that direction.Eric Anderson_{December 8, 2011
December
12
Dec
8
08
2011
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

Scott, I agree that what YOU designed YOU are he designing agency, even if you design something to perform some task and it performs it. And yes I can see that can be extrapolated to say that beavers are not the designers of their dams and lodges, whatever designed them is. And I can see that would also apply to humans- we are just programs rum amok. Hey that way no one claims responsibility- but I digress. Say you are in a new world- a new land, new continent- you are an explorer. Your land/ world/ continent doesn't have beavers nor any dam-building animals besides humans. You are trodging along in this new place and you come across a stream in a river bed. Knowing something about rivers and streams, because they exist where you live, you follow go upstream just because you are curious as to why a stream is in a river bed- is the source drying up? Maybe there is a tribe up there. So you go about a mile and there it is- a huge dam holding back a lake of water. The dam is a crude contstruct made of mud and wood- branches and tree trunks, all of which end in a nice shaven point. You look around and see tree stumps that also have nice, neat shaven points. Where you live there are dams that hold back rivers too. Some are made up of stacked logs plastered with mud. Do you A) suspect there was some agency that built the dam? or B) suspect some non-agency didit?Joe_{December 8, 2011
December
12
Dec
8
08
2011
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews2: I see that you had already answered in the same line of thought of my post, although with remarkable greater synthesis. :) I agree with your points.gpuccio_{December 8, 2011
December
12
Dec
8
08
2011
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

englishmaninistanbul: Good questions. 1) The first one is more difficult. Animal behaviour often generates complex outputs, that are obviously designed. The problem is, is the individual animal the designer? I see it more or less this way. Personally, I have no doubts that those animals are conscious, although probably in a rather different way than humans. So, they could be designers. But it is also true, as far as I can understand, that complex animal behaviours and outputs are repetitive. Indeed, they are generally attributes to "instinct", whatever that may mean. It is true that animals, in general (there may be exceptions) are not capable of generating truly new dFSCI, implementing truly new functions. Certainly, they usually lack structured language. They don't design new types of machines. That has always been recognized as one of the fundamental differences between animals and humans. That's also the reason why humans have a detectable history, where new dFSCI accumulates, is transmitted from generation to generation, and constantly added to. IOWs, animals IMO have conscious representations, but I am not so sure that they really have meaningful complex cognitions and truly free purposeful actions. If they are mainly guided by instinct (whatever it is), then the complexity should be found in the basis for that "instinct". Now, we don't really know what that basis is. It is reasonable to hypthesize that it derives from the genome, or from other epigenetic information. In that case, the animal would not really be the designer, even if it is conscious. I will be more clear. We humans have in our body a specific algorithm to increse the specific affinity of the primary response, after thye primary immune response. It is an amazingly intelligent algorithm, a wonderful example of protein engineering. And it probably outputs new dFSCI (the more specific antibodies), even if that new information is derived from preexisting information: the genetic algorithm, plus the specific information about the external epitope stored in antigen presenting cells. Now, would we say that the individual human is the designer of new dFSCI because his body is producing a new, specific antibody? Not really. As we have seen, it is not that the individual huamn consciously generates that output. Information already present in him, plus information derived from the environment, accomplishes the task. In this case, the judgement is easy, because the individual in no way is conscious of what is happening. But the same reasoning can be applied also to partially conscious behaviours. Evne movement of the body is in itsef a complex function (very complex indeed), and we are certainly conscious of the fact that we moce, and partially of how we move. But the huge amount of information that allows us to move was not created by us. In all these cases, the output of complex function can be outstanding, but there is a common feature: the function is repetitive. Our amazing immune algorithm can very efficiently engineer more specific antibodies, but it can do only that. Algorithms, indeed, cannot IMO create new dFSCI, except in the measure of the information they already have, plus eventual information from the envirnment that they are directly ore indirectly programmed to process. The identification of new functions, and the cretaion of complex information to implement them, seems to be a prerogative of cosncious intelligent beings, with at least the human level of meaningful maps of reality, and of purposeful, free actions. So, my humble opinion is that no, beavers are not designers in the sense I have defined. But the point is not easy, and I am ready to discuss it. 2) The second one, instead, is easy. The computer is not conscious. It is not a designer. Whatever functional complex output it can generate, is the result of the functional complexity in it, designed by its designer, plus eventual information derived from the environment that the designed system is prepared to process. That, as I have tried to say in the previous point, creates fundamental constraints to what the system can do. For instance, any computerized system can never truly "recognize" a new function, because it cannot understand what "function" means. It is not aware of purposes, so it cannot certainly recognize them, unless it has been objectively programmed to recognize some pattern as a "purpose". But the main point is: a computer is not conscious, and never will be. It has no subjective representation. Therefore, it can never be a designer, in the sense I have defined, because my definition of design is: "A process where a conscious intelligent purposeful being outputs, directly or indirectly (maybe through a computer), specific conscious intelligent purposeful representations to a material system."gpuccio_{December 8, 2011
December
12
Dec
8
08
2011
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

Joe, Your last question is the one that matters, and the answer is yes. I wrote a simple program that creates huge, very difficult mazes. The initial random lines it draws create its environment, and then it responds to that environment by filling in the rest. I am the designing agency, not it.ScottAndrews2_{December 8, 2011
December
12
Dec
8
08
2011
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

Are beavers design agents? I don’t think so.
Could beaver dams and lodges exist without them? Beaver dams and lodges can be traced back to the activity of the beavers.
They do the same thing over and over without knowing why.
And you talked to the beavers to make that determination?
If they were truly design agents, one would expect them to design something new once in a while.
If what you are currently designing works for your purposes there isn't any reason to change.
The “programming” they enact which enables them to analyze a site, collect materials, and build what they do is impressive, but there is no evidence that at one time beavers did not do it and then used their own intelligence to formulate the idea.
Is that a requirement to be a designing agency?Joe_{December 8, 2011
December
12
Dec
8
08
2011
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

Are beavers design agents? I don't think so. They do the same thing over and over without knowing why. Their work benefits others unbeknownst to them. If they were truly design agents, one would expect them to design something new once in a while. The "programming" they enact which enables them to analyze a site, collect materials, and build what they do is impressive, but there is no evidence that at one time beavers did not do it and then used their own intelligence to formulate the idea. Am I splitting hairs? You could call them agents of design, even designers, but not intelligent designers. The same is true of the computer program example. Regardless of its behavior, its seemingly intelligent output is a direct effect of someone's intelligent input.ScottAndrews2_{December 8, 2011
December
12
Dec
8
08
2011
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

GD, Okay, I continue to wait. Meanwhile GP has said many useful things on the linked information theory stuff. And I previously linked on the issues and how they are connected. I simply highlight here that isolated and identifiable, unrepresentative zones T in a large -- 10^150 - 10^300 is the lower bound on "large" -- config space W, will be such that the best explanation of an observed case E coming from T will be design, e.g. posts in this thread. Sampling theory will tell us why -- note no need to work out detailed probabilities, we are talking about searching large spaces on chance plus blind necessity. A small sample -- size of one straw to a cubical haystack 3 1/2 light days across is typical -- will with overwhelming confidence come up with straw, even if a whole solar system lurks within. And this is very closely related to the grounding of statistical thermodynamics and the second law, which points out why the spontaneous direction of change is towards the statistically overwhelmingly dominant clusters of microstates. I add, that T can be defined on function. Just yesterday I discovered a WP bug. If you put a square bracket in a caption for a picture, the post will break and vanish. That is a cliff of a boundary for the island of function! KFkairosfocus_{December 8, 2011
December
12
Dec
8
08
2011
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

Yes beavers, ants, termites, bees- are all designing agents. As for your computer it could be traced back to YOU and you are a designing agent.Joe_{December 8, 2011
December
12
Dec
8
08
2011
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

Thank you very much! I finally have that definition I've been looking for (and much better than my attempt): Design is produced by the agents who have all these three things: a) Conscious representations (consciousness) b) Meaningful cognitions (cognitive maps of reality, intelligence) c) Purposeful actions (originated by free will) I think it might be helpful in countering the "design is an illusion, consciousness is undefinable, free will is an illusion, if you say there's a designer who designed the designer" sort of objections if such a definition were standardized and given a term like "design agent." Whether or not this is in fact needed would probably also be a subject for fruitful discussion. :) I'm afraid I've only just been able to catch up with everything else that's been going on in this thread since my last post, and I'm still mulling it over. But before the iron goes cold, I'd like to strike it with two questions: 1) Are beavers design agents? 2) If I build a computer that can identify the objects around it, work out what would happen if it did what, and has a randomized "purpose determiner" to decide what it will do next, would that qualify as a design agent?englishmaninistanbul_{December 8, 2011
December
12
Dec
8
08
2011
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT}

englishmaninistanbul: I find now the time to comment a little on your post #14, which touches some fundamental issues. You say: Just having a little think to myself, it occurs to me that part of the trouble is in defining “consciousness” and “agency.” Correct. I will start with "consciousness". I have defended for a long time here a purely empirical definition of consciousness. According to it, consciousness is the simple fact that we have subjective experiences. Why is it a fact? Because each one of us perceives his own subjective experiences, and knows that they exist. All other "facts", about outer reality, science, and so on, come after that. They happen in the subjective experience of each one of us. So, consciousness is "the mother of all facts". What about consciousness in others? Is it a fact? No. It is an inference by analogy. We see other people, we see that they are similar to us (have a similar body, behave like us, speak like us, share with us inofrmation about their own cosncious experiences). On that base, by analogy, we are convinced that they too have subjective experiences similar to ours. But we don't perceive those experiences directly. We infer them. It is, however, an universally shared inference, on which we build our whole map of reality. (Solipsism is an expception, but it does not really change the general scenario). So, consciousness is part of reality, an empirical fact that cannot be denied. Must we "explain" consciousness? I don't think so. Do we "explain" what matter or energy are? What a force is? No. They are parts of our map of reality, and we "explain" other things by them. The same is true with consciousness. We cannot "explain" it as the result of some objective configuration of objective matter. No such theory could ever explain "the hard problem of cosnciousness", why subjective experiences exist. So, what can we do about consciusness? Many good things: a) Accept it as a fundamental part of reality b) Describe it, its formal properties, its rules and laws c) Investigate the relationship between consciousness (subjective experiences) and matter (including body, brain, and all objective entities). Some thoughts about b). Our consciousness has some distinctive formal properties, that have generated the emergence of words and concepts that describe those properties, and that can never be defined or understood without any reference to the subjective expreinces that have generated the concepts. IOWs, those concepts and words merely "describe" the form of subjective experiences, and in no way "explain" it on a purely objective basis. The first, fundamental property if subjectibe experiences is that they are modifications related to a perceiving "I". While every representation changes, the I is perceived as the same. That would require some more specifications, because of the wrong use that is often done of the word "I", but for the moment this will be enough. The second, fundamental concept is cognition. And the main expression of cognition is the concept of "meaning". That is the cognitive aspect of consciousness, and it maps reality giving it meanings. Its first expression is the concept of judgement, of "true" and "false". The third, fundamental concept is free will. And the main expression of free will is the concept of "choice". That is the moral and active aspect of consciousness, and it outputs cognitive maps to reality, attributing purposes to that interaction. Its first expression is the concept of feeling and moral polarization, of "pleasure" and "pain", of "good" and "evil". Ehen we speak of "intelligent conscious agents" as the originators of design, we are probably not complete. Indeed, design is produced by the agents who have all these three things: a) Conscious representations (consciousness) b) Meaningful cognitions (cognitive maps of reality, intelligence) c) Purposeful actions (originated by free will) So, how can we be reasonably sure that another agent is conscious, and has all those properties? Again, we easily infer that for other human beings. We infer it form their appearance, but especially from their behavious, language, form what they do, form how they interact with us. We don't use definitions for that. We just infer from our experience. ID theory has brought a new angle to all that. Having identified in design an activity absolutely specific of conscious intelligent purposeful agents (design can be defined as the projection into a material form of conscious representations that are meaningful and have purpose), ID hase found a formal property that can be recognized in designed objects, or at least in many of them: CSI, with its subsets like dFSCI. Tha is very interesting. Not only it is the foundation for inferring design in biological information, which is a very important issue without doubt. But also, it gives us for the first time a reliable marker for consciousness, beyiond our intuitive inferences by analogy: CSI is the product of conscious intelligent purposeful agents, and only of them. That is something, indeed. For the first time, we find that consciousness is not only an ornament to reality, but that it can do something that no non conscious system can do: generate huge amounts of CSI. Flew confirms that he accepts there must be “an intelligence”, and then reasons that the intelligence must be “omnipotent”, but that we’re not entitled to infer anything else in a religious sense. When questioned on whether that intelligence is eternal, he says “you can’t really separate the eternity from the omnipotence.” The interviewer asks if this must be a “personal force or being”, and among other things Flew says “He’s got to be conscious if he’s going to be an agent.” And so on. Well, I find Flew's answers very reasonable and sincere. Intelligent design does not speak to the nature of designers anymore than Darwin’s theory speaks to the origin of matter. I don't think that is a good way to put it. Two different things are both true: a) For design detection, it is not necessary to know details of the designer or of its nature. b) From the analysis of designed things, many things can often be inferred about the designer. But not always, and not all. Regarding predictions, I invite you to read my post 15.1 here. I don't believe that the prediciton of function for non coding DNA is the best prediction of ID theory, but it has some value. That seems confirmed by how many classical darwinists stick to the position that most non coding DNA has no functions. I do believe that many functions will be proven for most non coding DNA. It is not a question of "elegance". It is simply the most reasonable assumption, from a design perspective. Nobody writes code to use only 1.5% of it. Then you quote, about the issue that "The Designer Must be Complex and Thus Could Never Have Existed": This is obviously a philosophical argument, not a scientific argument, and the main thrust is at theists. So I will let a theist answer this question Well, as the "answer" was indeed taken form a post of mine, I quote it here, for mere narcissism: “Many materialists seem to think (Dawkins included) that a hypothetical divine designer should by definition be complex. That’s not true, or at least it’s not true for most concepts of God which have been entertained for centuries by most thinkers and philosophers. God, in the measure that He is thought as an explanation of complexity, is usually conceived as simple. That concept is inherent in the important notion of transcendence. A transcendent cause is a simple fundamental reality which can explain the phenomenal complexity we observe in reality. So, Darwinists are perfectly free not to believe God exists, but I cannot understand why they have to argue that, if God exists, He must be complex. If God exists, He is simple, He is transcendent, He is not the sum of parts, He is rather the creator of parts, of complexity, of external reality. So, if God exists, and He is the designer of reality, there is a very simple explanation for the designed complexity we observe.” I must add that for ID there is no necessity that the designer be God. Aliens have always been a valid alternative, as Dawkins himself admits. Aliens could be the designers of life on earth. The design detection would be wholly satisfied by such a scenario. It is true, however, that of aliens have a physical body, and express themselves through a complex physical nrain (or equivalent), and are in some way "biologically complex", then the question "who designed the designer" is legitimate. We should ask ourselves how the complex information in alien bodies (if empirically confirmed) originated. I was just stating that instead, if God or any other non physical agent is the designer, there is not need for that god or physical agent to be "complex". Indeed, what characterizes consciousness in humans is exactly a "simple" perceiving I. Most conceptions of a god believe that he is simple in essence, although his creation is very complex. It is true: these are phylosophical arguments. But also the original objection ("The Designer Must be Complex and Thus Could Never Have Existed") is philosophical. Affirming that the designer must be complex is the same as assuming that it must have a physical body and brain. That is a philosophical assumption, and has nothing to do with science. Usually, I don't use much philosophical arguments in my ID discussions. But if I have to answer a philosophical question, I feel that I am allowed to use philosophical answers. That's all.gpuccio_{December 7, 2011
December
12
Dec
7
07
2011
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

I would have to disagree that everything is missing. Many fossil lineages have smaller morphological differences than those separating breeds of dogs.
That does not address anything I said. What was the incremental genetic change? If it's as small as you say, what distinguishes it from the background variations between nearly every specimen of everything? Why was it selected? How do a series of them add up to something novel? You could call those questions "gaps," but what does that leave? What is between the gaps, and what good is it if it doesn't include a single account, real or hypothetical, of anything evolving described in terms of actual variations or mechanism? How can the 'cornerstone of biology' have no concrete examples in biology beyond bacterial loss of function adaptations and fishes that change color? "Gaps" is a marketing word. It sells the idea that there is a continuum of knowledge with missing pieces. A gap is what you have when you are missing a tooth, not when you have one or none.ScottAndrews2_{December 7, 2011
December
12
Dec
7
07
2011
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: I appreciate your appreciation. And I appreciate your openness to empirical verification, which, as already said, is something I fully agree with. About OOL, I will make a personal consideration: I have no strong evidence at present, but my favourite model is that life originated, in the span of a few hundred million years between the time when earth became compatible with life and the time when the first division into archea and bacteria occurred, pretty much as we know it today: with an already complex eukaryote, more or less what we now call LUCA. Personally, I don't believe in a gradual origin of life. I am ready to change my mind if and when real data will support a different scenario. So, IMO, it was neither DNA first, nor protein first, nor RNA first, nor metabolism first. It was DNA, protein, RNA and metabolisl all together, as we see it today. A big, rather sudden informational leap from inanimate matter, the result of a huge design effort. Nothing like that happened for a long time after that, at least up to the origin of eukaryiotes, and then later with the origin of multicellular macroscopic beings, with the ediacara and cambrian explosions. In my view, design is implemented both in "punctuated" forms and in more gradual forms. Speciation often allows a more gradual information implementation, while fundamental transitions in the biological plan seem to happen rather suddenly. But again, this is only a suggestion, entirely guided by what we at present know. As I said, I am ready to change my mind according to new evidence.gpuccio_{December 7, 2011
December
12
Dec
7
07
2011
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

With ID and Creation no intervention is required wrt biology after the initial set-up.
Well, there are so many divergent opinions among ID proponents that it is difficult to discuss this.Petrushka_{December 7, 2011
December
12
Dec
7
07
2011
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

I have to admit that every time a gap in the continuum is filled, two new gaps are created, so there will never be a gapless continuum. I would have to disagree that everything is missing. Many fossil lineages have smaller morphological differences than those separating breeds of dogs. That is true even of "punctuated" species. Since most dog breed are only a few hundred years old, we know that morphological changes can occur very quickly.Petrushka_{December 7, 2011
December
12
Dec
7
07
2011
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

Again with the twisting in the wind; proving my point that you simple cannot even speak of the evidence against you. If someone provides blatantly observable physical evidence against your worldview, then they are told they must produce either a God or beaker of proto-life (with instructions) in order to be taken seriously. This isn't a demand of science or empiricism; it's a defense for a defeated ideology. But yet, for you to swallow your own narrative whole, one is told they only need the see the results of the process (ie: we are here, so we must have evolved from a unguided chance event in chemical history). Again, what mechanism is causally-adequate to explain an observable immaterial property being instatiated into a physical object?Upright BiPed_{December 7, 2011
December
12
Dec
7
07
2011
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

With ID and Creation no intervention is required wrt biology after the initial set-up. As for the consilience of evidence, well, seeing that ID is evidenced in fields such as physics, astonomy, cosmology, biology and chemistry, I would say THAT constitutes a consilience of evidence. BTW you are allowed to believe and imagine anything you want about evolution. However sooner or later, for science anyway, you will need something we can actually test.Joe_{December 7, 2011
December
12
Dec
7
07
2011
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

Actually, angels as well as angles.Petrushka_{December 7, 2011
December
12
Dec
7
07
2011
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

No one has ever observed Pluto making a complete orbit of the sun. It’s all just extrapolation.
It's a good extrapolation, a warranted one. That does not make "extrapolation" a magic word that grants credibility anything and everything. Yours is wishful, not warranted. To explain nothing and call the unexplained portion a "gap" would be quite generous. A gap is something missing from a continuum. The continuum is inferred from all the stuff that isn't missing. Everything is missing. Your comparison to Newton is also unwarranted.
We believe Whales and bats and amphibians and birds and such evolved incrementally because we keep finding gap fillers, and because technology has given us genomics, which provides a parallel method of looking for nested hierarchies.
My fingers are bleeding from typing this so many times. The increments of evolution are individual genetic changes. The proposed mechanisms of evolution are selection and drift and the flavor of the month. You cannot identify any of these from taxonomies, hierarchies, or fossils. You are taking what is observed, namely the diversity, and adding a post-hoc explanation. Even then your post-hoc explanation omits - guess what - the incremental changes and the specific selection of each. That's "evidence" for college students with glazed-over eyes who've read it so many times they don't stop for ten seconds to think about it, which is all it takes to see what's wrong with it once you realize that you're allowed to.ScottAndrews2_{December 7, 2011
December
12
Dec
7
07
2011
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Information is neither matter nor energy yet interacts with both.Joe_{December 7, 2011
December
12
Dec
7
07
2011
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

Of course I'm interested. I follow origin of life research. Saying I don't know isn't the same as not being interested. You seem to know. You could save everyone a great deal of time an trouble simply by publishing the time and place where life was breathed into inanimate matter. Perhaps a detailed description of the first replicator using the genetic code.Petrushka_{December 7, 2011
December
12
Dec
7
07
2011
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

No one has ever observed Pluto making a complete orbit of the sun. It's all just extrapolation. Newton extrapolated the laws governing the motions of the planets from the motions of cannonballs. It's how science works. Prior to Newton, cannonballs and planets were not considered to engage in regular motion. They required angles to push them along. Since Newton, science has defaulted to regularity rather than to intervention. It leaves a lot of unexplained gaps, but the history of science is the history of filling gaps. We believe Whales and bats and amphibians and birds and such evolved incrementally because we keep finding gap fillers, and because technology has given us genomics, which provides a parallel method of looking for nested hierarchies. It is not any particular line of evidence that provides proof, but the consilience of many separate, independent lines of evidence that strengthens the case. I'm not aware of any example in the history of science where an intervention hypothesis has been confirmed.Petrushka_{December 7, 2011
December
12
Dec
7
07
2011
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

Since Newton, science assumes that an observed regular process is the best explanation for the history of anything within its scope.
Thank you, that's a point for me.
One difference is that no one has ever seen a human or any other intelligent entity design a biological molecule.
No one has seen anything, least of the invention of innovative new features by iterative variation and selection. But where you're quick to point out the one difference, the difference between fish changing color and fish developing lungs and walking on land and then changing their minds and evolving into whales sails right past you. You'll draw lines, erase others, and believe what no one has seen as long as it's the one you've picked. Your selective skepticism is transparent. As UB has repeatedly explained, life depends on semiotic information which is an unmistakable, undeniable mark of intelligent purpose. Anyone acquainted with the evidence who denies it is willfully beyond the reach of reason. In order to accept the fantastic proposition that RM+NS (+ etc., etc., X, unknown but unintelligent) adds up to a body of innovation that dwarfs the entire history of human technology, we must rule that the intelligence responsible for making life possible absolutely played no further role in its development. We must make one baseless assumption to justify another. That is justification of a preconception, not science.ScottAndrews2_{December 7, 2011
December
12
Dec
7
07
2011
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

"From my viewpoint the only issue that can rationally be discussed is whether genomes can evolve without intervention." However, you are not the least bit interested in HOW they do so; the semiotic mechanism that makes it all possible. If the very process by which the transfer of information displays "intervention" in the most profound dynamic manner possible, then to hell with it - 'let's not talk about that'. That, my friend, is intellectual fraud. It is the bane of empirical science.Upright BiPed_{December 7, 2011
December
12
Dec
7
07
2011
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

I'll just chime in here to show appreciation for the nature of this discussion. As for comments about common descent, I'll have to say that bot ID and Evolution carry a lot of baggage that has nothing to do with the history of life. From my viewpoint the only issue that can rationally be discussed is whether genomes can evolve without intervention.Petrushka_{December 7, 2011
December
12
Dec
7
07
2011
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Stop it with the nested hierarchies already- the theory of evolution can live with them or without them and it does not expect a nested hierarchy based on traits. Not only that descent with modification doesn't expect one based on traits for the simple fact that traits can be lost. Lose a trait and lose containment. Nested hierarchies require containment. As for Newton- EXACTLY. The ONLY process we know of that can create new functional and useful multi-part systems is design, intentional design, including intelligent design evolution as observed in all genetic and evolutionary algorithms. Also changes in populations over time have only been observed to create a wobbling stability- no progress, no new systems. And once we know the detailed history of those molecules ID will become the reigning paradigm. What else is there? Stuff happened and life emerged?Joe_{December 7, 2011
December
12
Dec
7
07
2011
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

Give me a counterexample. Show me a theory or a research program that does not assume that matter is whatever interacts with matter. (Matter and energy being different expressions of the same thing.)Petrushka_{December 7, 2011
December
12
Dec
7
07
2011
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

For what evolutionary transitions have you calculated the probabilities, and how, so that you can say it is probable rather than improbable?
Since Newton, science assumes that an observed regular process is the best explanation for the history of anything within its scope. That is why the nested hierarchies of fossils and genomes is critical. that is why Lenski and Thornton have spent decades demonstrating that incremental evolution is possible, and that multi-step adaptations can be bridged by neutral or nearly neutral changes. Probability theory cannot be applied to events that have already happened, for the simple reason that anything can be analyzed as the product of a long string of individual events, each of which has low probability. Take the last dozen Lotto winners and ask the probability that those exact people would win in that sequence, for example. ID looks at structures an assumes that they are necessary or pre-planned. That is certainly justified in looking at human artifacts like watches, but there are two important differences when looking at biological structures. One difference is that no one has ever seen a human or any other intelligent entity design a biological molecule. Not without using a process equivalent to evolution. No one can outline a process for biological design that doesn't involve cut and try. So the analogy to the watchmaker fails at the most elementary level. No one has seen a biological watchmaker. The other difference is that we have observed natural processes that create changes in populations over time. The remaining questions all revolve around our ignorance of the detailed history of genomes. ID survives because we don't know the detailed history of the molecules.Petrushka_{December 7, 2011
December
12
Dec
7
07
2011
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply