Evolutionist: Let’s Admit it, We Don’t Fully Understand How Evolution Works

_{Cornelius Hunter
April 27, 2013

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Philip Ball’s opinion piece in this week’s Nature, the most popular science magazine in the world, is news not because he stated that we don’t fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level, but because he urged his fellow evolutionists to admit it. On this 60th anniversary of the discovery of the DNA double helix, Ball reviews a few of the recent findings that have rebuked the evolution narrative that random mutations created the biological world. Unfortunately Ball fails to take his own advice and ends up doing precisely what he advises other evolutionists against—whitewashing the science. Read more

Comments

Hi Cheshire, Welcome to you UD, and thank you for your contribution (no, I'm not a moderator or anything of that nature, just someone who enjoys this site and apprecaites good open discussion). To answer your question: the likes of CharlieD and Joealtle do sometimes crop up but thankfully not too often. Although having said that people like them are welcome to voice their opinions too, and as you can see from their posts, can provide a little entertainment ;) Concerning CharlieD and Joealtle, I have a sneeky feeling they may be roomies, possibly aged somewhere in the regions of 14-17. I think they honestly believed that they were onto something and were all set to completely turn UD onto its head. They may or may not be back. Whatever they do I really hope that they look a little deeper into what it is they believe and therefore experience some form of enlightenment on the various subjects discussed here. One thing is for sure though, their ilk will come around again :)PeterJ_{April 30, 2013
April
04
Apr
30
30
2013
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT}

What a bizarre thread. I've asked the same question about 4 times - "What is the naturalistic mechanism that explains the origin of information in DNA?" The first guy claims science has got a bunch of evidence to back it up, but when asked to present it, he runs away. The second guy gives me this as a response: "Either way they are both information and both the product of nature". No defense of that statement, no explanation - just throwing it out there as a fact. Of course, not before avoiding the question multiple times, then tossing out some weird insult involving skid marks. Then I presume he ran away too. I haven't been on this site very long, but is that how all the Darwinists who come here act?cheshire_{April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT}

CharlieD: Stop being obtuse. This is not a question of me making stuff up and coming up with novel definitions. Spend some time studying information theory, please. Let's cut to the chase to see if we can get past your red herring objection to the concept of information. Simple yes or no: Is there a difference between the information contained in DNA and the "information" contained in a pile of rocks or the rings of Saturn?Eric Anderson_{April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

Either way they are both information and both the product of nature. You guys sure know how to tailor your arguments so that only you can win, but in the end it doesnt really matter because you guys will still be just a skidmark in science's underwear. Enjoy the ego-stroking circlejerk you guys have here! See yaCharlieD_{April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

No, no, no... Charlie, that's not what Eric is saying at all, and you know it. In a sense, he's actually agreeing with you by acknowleding your original point that there are different definitions for information. What he's saying though is similiar to what i'm saying, which is that your analogy of binding affinity as information isn't at all compatible with information as it's contained in a DNA molecule. You're mixing up two very different concepts and calling them both "information". Eric, if i'm putting words in your mouth, my apologies. But I think that's what you're getting at.cheshire_{April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

I get that Charlie, but you're missing my point: I'm not debating the definition of "binding affinity" with you. What i'm asking is, given binding affinity as an example, how is that analogous to information as it's expressed in a DNA molecule? Again, you seem to be interpreting information as observed properties or "rules that govern things", and if you want to define it that way, then so be it. But what you seem to be suggesting is "hey, that's information, and so is DNA, so same thing!" That's like me saying "rocks exist and have certain properties that govern them", then concluding that those properties are information in the same sense that the carving of Mt. Rushmore is information. Or more specific to the topic at hand, it's like stating that guanine, cytosine, adenine and thymine have certain properties and rules that govern them, then concluding that those properties/rules are the same concept as the specific arrangement of GATC in billions of lines of code that convey specific expressions. Those are clearly not the same concepts... even if you want to label them both "information", they are not information in the same sense at all. Again, the DNA molecule is the mathematical equivalent of a language. And that is NOT reasoning by analogy. It has words, sentences, and very specific rules and expressions that aren't simply the result of natural interactions, at least none that are known. It fits squarely into the definition of information as defined by information theory. It is a code. It is not brought together by anything resembling binding affinity. So simply appealling to non-covalent interactions as an analogy doesn't IMO hold water. One is simply the result of inherent properties, but that is not true of DNA. That's why the original point of this discussion came up - Joe seemed to be suggesting there WERE naturalistic properties or explanations that could explain DNA, and I asked what they were. So far, i'm yet to get an answer. If you have an explanation as to what that is, please share it. I'm asking that sincerely, not trying to score any debate points.cheshire_{April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

Ah gotcha, so only what UD defines as "information" can be classified as actual information. That's all I needed to hear!CharlieD_{April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

CharlieD:
Binding affinities however is information in nature, it is information as to which molecules can form lasting interactions or not
No. When someone studies and then describes these binding affinities, that description becomes information. You need to distinguish between information about a physical object and information contained in a physical object. Physical objects, by their mere existence, do not contain information in the sense that is meaningful for understanding living systems. The kind of "information" that you argue is present in binding affinities has nothing to do with the kind of information contained in, for example, DNA. This should help: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ea-nails-it-in-a-response-to-an-insightful-remark-by-kn-the-ability-of-a-medium-to-store-information-is-inversely-proportional-to-the-self-ordering-tendency-of-the-medium/#comment-450676Eric Anderson_{April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

Your not getting it, it seems you have never taken a biochemistry or cell bio class as you would have a much better understanding of the phrase "binding affinity" and how it has nothing to do with atoms covalently bonding. Binding affinities can be comprised of an almost infinite number of variations of non-covalent interactions, it is a basic type of information that governs the interactions between almost everything in the cell.CharlieD_{April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

Okay, you seem to be asserting that because you can deduce facts from an entity via observation, that's the same thing as saying it carries information. So yes, you're correct, we're using very different ideas of information here. Let's go back to the example I used above: the string 010101010101 has certain facts that are inherent to it. It has 2 characters in it. Those characters repeat. There are 12 of them. It even has affinity to it in that a 1 will always attract a 0 after it, which will then always attract a 1 after it. It's a pattern. So yes, just like saying "hydrogen bonds to oxygen", those are facts about the string that can be observed... but the string expresses nothing in an informational sense. It can't. That's far different from a computer code in which 0s and 1s are placed in certain intervals for the sake of specific expressions. So deducing facts about the string says nothing about whether the string carries any information within it. I think the problem here Charlie is that you want to get into a debate about how we define information, and you're obviously welcome to do that. It's a valid discussion in the right context, and you may even convince me you're right. But it misses the original point of why the topic of information was raised. The code of DNA is not analogous to the idea that two atoms may have an affinity to bond together, which is why I disagree that it's information. So the definition of information you fault for me for using is the only one that makes sense given the reality of what DNA is, which is the mathematical equivalent of a written code that can't be explained via affinity any more than this sentence can be. That's why I'm using it.cheshire_{April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

It most certainly does make a difference. Bonding of atoms occurs more often than naught to produce the same pattern which as you say cannot be used as information. Because it is only repetition of the same thing. Binding affinities however is information in nature, it is information as to which molecules can form lasting interactions or not, it is the basis of molecular pharmacology. Your definition of information requires a mind to comprehend it, but information on the molecular level can be presented and comprehended through interactions between molecules which leads to an effect such as catalysis of a reaction simply by placing two molecules within close proximity for a longer period of time.CharlieD_{April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

The argument was that said affinity was an example of information in nature. My response was that it wasn't. Whether it's bonding/binding or molecules/atoms you're talking about, it makes no difference.cheshire_{April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Here's Ball's entire article: "Sixty years on, the very definition of 'gene' is hotly debated. We do not know what most of our DNA does, nor how, or to what extent it governs traits. In other words, we do not fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level." (DNA at 60: Still Much to Learn April 28, 2013) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dna-at-60-still-much-to-learnbornagain77_{April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

I believe the argument was that the affinity of molecules for one another was the argument itself. Binding affinity between molecules and bonding between atoms are two different things.CharlieD_{April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

CharlieD, as I stated above, it's irrelevant. It's not whether it's binding or bonding that matters in the context of this conversation. The key word is "affinity", which has to be overcome to create information. If you believe it does matter, please explain why, and if you believe there is a more accurate definition of information I should be using, please explain that as well. I'm still yet to hear anyone explain what the naturalistic mechanism is for the origin of information in DNA, or why arguing from the uniformity of observation is an argument from ignorance. As Eric points out above in 64, I think this conveys a severe misunderstanding of what an argument from ignorance really is. I find it further confusing that such grandiose claims are being made for naturalistic explanations of abiogenesis, and yet no one can seem to say what those explanations are.cheshire_{April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

joealtle:
Argument from ignorance.
Nope. An argument based on what we do know, not what we don't know. As opposed to your argument, which is based on what you hope to discover one day and on a willingness to believe almost anything that supports your philosophy, no matter how absurd.Eric Anderson_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT}

Binding affinity and bonding are two completely different things.CharlieD_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT}

Whether you call it binding or bonding doesn't alter the point. In terms of defining information, If you think I'm specifically picking one definition at the expense of another to bolster an argument, please explain to me which definition I should be using instead and why that definition is more valid given the topic at hand. But in terms of information and information theory, it's been written on extensively and the concept has very specific characteristics and parameters. I wouldn't say that information has varying definitions as much as it does a lot of misunderstanding and confusion about what it is. You are correct, patterns are often associated with information, but typically in the act of confusing the two, which is what so many of these so called examples of "information appearing in nature" end up doing. As I stated above, patterns disrupt and suppress information. A pattern ("ABC ABC ABC ABC") doesn't convey anything because it's just repitition, whereas information ("THE CAT IS BLACK") does. One has specificity and orchestrated variation, the other doesn't. All that being said, putting aside for a moment any debate about how to define information, let's assume I agree with you. I still haven't heard anyone explain what the naturalistic mechanism is that explains the origin of such a complex level of information in the DNA molecule (which is most certainly not a pattern regardless of how you want to define information). Joealtle indicates higher up in this thread that we have a lot of ideas that are supported by scientific evidence, but I'm yet to hear what the mechanisms are and what the evidence is that supports them. I'm also yet to hear it explained why using uniformity of observation is an argument from ignorance.cheshire_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

JoeA said binding affinities, not bonding. Information can be defined many ways, using your own definition of it in an argument might not always be the best idea. Also patterns are very closely associated with information.CharlieD_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

Sorry to see Joe leave, assuming he did. But Joe, if you are reading this, you're still not describing information. Bonding affinities are not information. Patterns are not information. Bonding affinities actually prevent information because they simply create redundant patterns. If you were to write a computer program and the code is just 1010101010 and goes on like that forever, that CAN'T be information because it can't express anything except that single pattern. It's not capable of expressing a message or a code, which requires carefully orchestrated variation. This is why all the examples the NDE crowd like to give of nature showing information (snowflakes, etc.) don't hold water, because they don't understand that order does not = information. What I find strange is that you keep claiming ID is an argument from ignorance, but you won't say why.... as if just saying it over and over again makes it true. I'll repeat again: ID is an argument based on the uniformity of experience and observation. Information comes from intelligence. It's the only known cause (even if you won't agree that it's the only known cause, it is a known cause the most frequently observed cause). So i'm incredulous that anyone could claim asserting the only known cause of the information as an explanation for the information in every DNA molecule of your body is somehow an argument from ignorance. And what I find even odder is that you keep talking about how science has all of these other proposed mechanisms as if we've just about got abiogenesis solved... but you are yet to name a single one. ID proposes a mechanism based on uniformity of experience, the exact same principle Darwin used to formulate natural selection. You are yet to propose an alternative mechanism. So meaning this as respectfully as possible, can you understand why it's a little hard for me to take seriously the claim that we're the ones making the argument from ignorance?cheshire_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

An honest evolutionist? That's rare.DunsScotus_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

I noticed a couple of commenters here I haven't seen before, shader and cheshire -- good comments from both of you.Chance Ratcliff_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

BA77 @37, those two episodes have some fantastic material. I think Paul Nelson's focus on the issues with ontogenetic development is crucial to understanding where some of the greatest problems lie with Darwinian evolution.Chance Ratcliff_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

"So no refutation of my claims?"
I think if you put forward an actual argument you might get some takers. But making grand claims about the existence of evidence that you haven't bothered to put forward is not the same thing. And after your comment #52, it's even harder to take you seriously, because you appear to be a caricature of the materialist believer. I think it's at least equally likely that you're either sincere and full of bluster, or that you're an ID proponent having fun playing the role of a stereotypical Darwinist and taking us all for a ride.Chance Ratcliff_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

Its been fun guys, but I have to return to the real world now. Enjoy whatever it is that you guys think you are doing on here, come visit earth whenever you get a chance. Just remember, leave the science to the scientists, because what you guys are doing is certainly not science. Adios.Joealtle_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

So no refutation of my claims? Just you saying its a joke? Yes, more ignorance and sarcasm, two of the hallmarks of the typical ID movement follower, along with scientific illiteracy.Joealtle_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

#52 reads like satire. I'm starting to think we're being taken for a ride. :oChance Ratcliff_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

They are information on the process of erosion, moraines are information on receding glaciers. The carbon cycle is order without any intelligent design that provides information. How about binding affinities? They are a basic principle that your body constantly uses and are not the product of intelligence, but somehow they control jsut about every aspect of the cell. Education level is irrelevant, everything I post about is directly from things I have learned in science literature. The idea that a designer exists is completely illogical, as there is no evidence to support this. There is evidence that certain levels of biological function can arise from inorganic material, just because we havent found the exact steps taken by life to arise, you guys claim its impossible. Argument from ignorance.Joealtle_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

JoeA, you are being silly. The universe exists. We exist. So somehow life arose. But to say science has any clue how that happened is a bold-faced lie. No one on this site can scientifically prove that God or any other intelligent designer did it. But neither can you. Science is no closer today than they were 50 years ago. In fact, true science only complicates things year after year as we learn more about the cell, DNA, etc. To many on this site, the evidence of a designer is as clear as day. It's self-evident, logical, and just makes sense. Your asking for "proof" is just a silly request from someone that has no answers himself.shader_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

JoeA - I mean to say this kindly to help you. There are people who make meaningful arguments for materialism. You are not one. Most of your arguments are trite and result from logical misunderstandings and category errors. It really does no good putting a logical argument before you because you totally ignore it. I really am curious. 1. What is your age range ( teens, 20's, 30's 40's....)? 2. What is your current level of education? HS, BS-BA, Grad? Hopefully, what you write is just youthful immaturity showing itself. Many of the people on this site have advanced degrees and/or teach. I am not interested in everyone agreeing with me, but I don't think unlearned and ignorant statements help any debate. I hope your statements are just the exuberance of immaturity.JDH_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply