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

_{Cornelius Hunter

April 27, 2013

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; 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

Rock formations are information? On what basis are you making that statement? What information is contained in a rock formation? Rock formations and anything random or even repetitive are the exact opposite of information. There is no complexity in the informational sense, no specificity, and no message contained within. A rock itself isn't information, but it can be a pallet upon which information is expressed, such as Mt. Rushmore. Saying a rock is information is like saying letters are information - it's not the letters themselves that make them informational but the arrangement and expression. And the carbon cycle is not information... it's a cycle. A process isn't information. You wouldn't call the process of natural selection information. You may say it adds to DNA information, but the process or mechanism is not in and of itself information. When I write a book, I'm creating information, I would not call the process of writing itself information but a mechanism for creating or gaining information. Again, I think you're making a category error between a mechanism for producing information and information itself. So I'm still unclear as to how asserting information comes from intelligence is an argument from ignorance when it's observed all the time, but stating information comes about from purely naturalistic/random processes isn't an argument from ignorance when it's never been observed. It would seem to me that the exact opposite is true.cheshire_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

What about the carbon cycle? Rock formations and moraines? These provide us with information about carbon sequestration and erosion/glaciation. These are created by nature. Whether nature has an inherent intelligence or not is up to you.Joealtle_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

I'm not toting it as anything - i'm trying to understand how it's an argument from ignorance to state that information comes from intelligence instead of arising naturally when the only known cause of information is intelligence.cheshire_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

Still waiting for some scientific research done on ID. You guys tote this as a scientific website, that provides scientific evidence, do you not?Joealtle_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

JoeA, watch how this works: If ID isnt an insertion of a creator in the gaps of scientific evidence for abiogenesis If ID isnt an insertion of a creator in the gaps of reductive materialistic evidence for abiogenesis Notice any difference in the sentence JoeA? I don't! i.e. Begging the question! assuming your conclusion! Science IS NOT reductive materialism JoeA! Moreover quantum mechanics has shown reductive materialism to be false!bornagain77_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

Joe, in comment 41, you're asking for 2 different things. As I stated in the next comment, ID is an argument based on the uniformity of observation. We see information arise from intelligence - it is in fact the only known cause of information. So I don't see how that's an argument from ignorance at all. It seems that arguing for information as having a purely naturalistic origin is far more an argument from ignorance since it's based on no known mechanism. Second, you state that in order to prove that it's not an argument from ignorance, you require a step by step explanation of "how" it was designed. But these are two completely different topics - whether something was designed vs. how it was designed. To state whether something was designed doesn't require evidence of how it was designed. This is something you deduce on your own all the time. If you're walking through the woods and see a series of wooden steps, you know it was designed without having to understand who built it, what kind of wood they used, how long it took them, etc. Even if i'd never seen a car before in my life, the first time I saw one i'd know it was designed without having to see the manufacturing floor. So I think you're making a rather severe category error there.cheshire_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Joeatle:
The fact is that ID is an argument from ignorance.
Yet it is based on our KNOWLEDGE of cause and effect relationships. OTOH your position is based on our ignorance.Joe_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Joe, I'm asking this sincerely: what are the numerous ideas out there in the field of abiogenesis that you find so compelling? I'll admit, my understanding of this field is vastly different from yours and far less optimistic. As I see it, even in reading interviews with origin of life researchers themselves, this is hardly a field the NDE crowd should be hanging their hat on. The problem is simply that DNA has no explanation for it's origin. It can't be explained via evolution or mutation since those concepts can't kick in until you already have DNA. It is information, pure and simple, and I'm yet to see anyone come close to an explanation for how information can arise from nothing. I can, however, arise from intelligence, which is why i'd argue your "ID is an argument from ignorance" claim doesn't hold water since it's actually an argument from the uniformity of observation, not ignorance. If there's something out there i've missed, I would sincerely be interested in hearing what it is.cheshire_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

If ID isnt an insertion of a creator in the gaps of scientific evidence for abiogenesis, then provide some scientific work that studies and shows how cells were designed.Joealtle_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

The ratchet is active, information driven system behaviour. As long as it is intact, it proceeds on programs and responds to maintenance challenges, but as it breaks down gradually in any case or as something disrupts critical functions, it collapses the system, and the parts then lose that sustaining integration and disintegration proceeds apace. And so we come back to the pivotal issue: whence those critical functions depending on information-rich coordination and integration. The obvious clue staring us in the face and backed up by billions of inductive test cases, is that FSCO/I has one empirically warranted adequate cause, design; so it is reasonable to infer on the sign of FSCO/I to the credible best explanation, design, whether or no this sits comfortably with certain commonly seen ideologies. But, design is exactly the cause the likes of JA seemingly CANNOT accept per a priori ideological impositions that they have used to even redefine science. So, they are sacrificing the key goal of science, truth seeking based on evidence, in favour of ideology. Sad. KFkairosfocus_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

JoeA, you claim:
The fact is that ID is an argument from ignorance. I cant tell you when science will be able to explain everything, but it probably wont be for a very long time. This is good for you IDers, who love to play on the lack of scientific facts as evidence for ID. But, newsflash, a lack of evidence is not proof of anything. The fact is that abiogenesis is the best idea says to how life arose and evolution is the best idea as to how the biological diversity we see today came about.
JoeA, you are severely confused about many things here. The root cause for your confusion is to conflate the philosophy of reductive materialism with your definition of 'science', i.e. when you state the word science I could just as easily insert the the term 'reductive materialism' and your sentence would mean exactly the same thing!,, but number 1, quantum mechanics, especially quantum teleportation, has shown reductive materialism to be false, and number 2, 'science', as in the systematic study of nature, is not possible without Theistic presuppositions. Presuppositions as to the intelligibility of nature and the ability of man's mind to fathom this intelligibility. These presuppositions that are necessary to do science do not arise from the a-priori belief that the universe and all life in it arose from random chaotic events, but from the a-priori belief that man is made in the image of God who created a rational universe that is able to be approached and deeply comprehended by the mind on man. In fact JoeA, by the fact that you yourseld are on UD arguing for the reasonableness of your position you are in fact making necessary Theistic presuppositions about free will and reason,,
Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html Professor John Lennox | The God Debate | Oxford Union http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=otrqzITuSqE#t=238s
Moreover JoeA, your argument that 'science', as you have it defined to a reductive materialistic basis, will someday answer all questions about reality is known as the 'materialism of the gaps' argument, or as 'promissory materialism', but, much contrary to how you imagine the state of evidence to be, the gaps that reductive materialism is promising to explain have been growing ever wider and wider, and the few areas we thought materialism did explain are now disappearing. As Professor John Lennox has stated, "God is not a God of the gaps, He is God of the whole show"bornagain77_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

JDH #27: Here is the dirty little secret all real scientists know. You can’t build a probability ratchet by random processes. This is because any process that can randomly move up the probability ladder, must have equal probability of moving down the probability ladder.
JDH, thank you for that insight. It has some correlation with S L Talbott's question about the remarkable reselience of life: (..) the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? There seems to be a ratchet in place. What is it? The particles have no concept of (are not interested in) the organism as a whole (which according to naturalism does not exist).Box_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

lifepsy and Chance, they loaded part 2 of this gem: The Miracle of Development Part 1 - Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD9qMvz6T90 The Miracle of Development Part 2 | Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz12PI3BkQ4bornagain77_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

Sorry im dealing with your friends who are probably making better arguments than you. The fact is that ID is an argument from ignorance. I cant tell you when science will be able to explain everything, but it probably wont be for a very long time. This is good for you IDers, who love to play on the lack of scientific facts as evidence for ID. But, newsflash, a lack of evidence is not proof of anything. The fact is that abiogenesis is the best idea says to how life arose and evolution is the best idea as to how the biological diversity we see today came about.Joealtle_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT}

"So again, let me just get this straight? That all of your arguments are based on the fact that because scientists currently cannot explain how some cellular machinery and processes arose, that this means there has to have been an intelligent designer?" Now I am convinced you are a discovery institute plant. what a bunch of crap. "currently cannot explain"? What an absolute crap head. So when do you think or even speculate when "scientists" will be able to "explain" how some cellullar machinery and processes "arose"? You do not have to even bring up an "intelligent designer". It is just another strawman that you think is easy to knock down to support your stupid position. What a load of unsubstantiated conjecture. I have noticed your lack of response to my previously expressed statements. Leads me to believe you are a discovery institute proponent or a fricking coward. So which is it?bpragmatic_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

"You guys really come up with some gems!"
...says the King of coming up with gems. Hehe :DChance Ratcliff_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT}

NATURE is just editors and writers writing on subjects they are not experts on I presume. Nature giving thumbs up or down to evolution is worthless. Only the merits of the evidence justify's a scientific theory as opposed to somebody's hunch. Nature should not just allow questioning of certain ideas in evolutionism but should examine whether evolution is a scientific theory. A scientific theory should not be so open to criticism by anyone. IS evolutionary biology in its great and near great claims based on biological scientific evidence?? If its not true fellow YEC'ers or ID'ers then the answer must be NO. So the target should be the methodology and not just failure of evidence. NATURE has failed as a scientific magazine on the big ideas.Robert Byers_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT}

Thanks Chance and lifepsy! :) You guys really come up with some gems!bornagain77_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT}

The video that lifepsy posted at #22 is quite good. It's going to take a few views to really absorb the material, but anyone with an interest in the state of biological science should check it out. It's also very well annotated, with references to the books and papers that Denis Noble mentions all showing up on screen as they're made. This is worth a headline, imo.Chance Ratcliff_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

Except for the fact that Genesis states that god created everything at once, but for some reason new stars are being born?Joealtle_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT}

Joealtle you state:
Do you have any evidence that this world is created by an intelligent designer? NO you dont. You have nothing.
How do you know what evidence we have before you give a chance to answer? Are you omniscient like God? “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” - Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston - paper delivered at Stephen Hawking's 70th birthday party (Characterized as 'Worst Birthday Present Ever') https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/ The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole. Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&task=view&id=3594 “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.” George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE "Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’ ,,, 'And if you're curious about how Genesis 1, in particular, fairs. Hey, we look at the Days in Genesis as being long time periods, which is what they must be if you read the Bible consistently, and the Bible scores 4 for 4 in Initial Conditions and 10 for 10 on the Creation Events' Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere; video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236 "I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite intelligence. I believe that the universe's intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science." Anthony Flew - world's leading intellectual atheist for most of his adult life until a few years shortly before his death The Case for a Creator - Lee Strobel (Nov. 25, 2012) - video http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/ee32d/ The Privileged Planet - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnWyPIzTOTw The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery - book By Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Wesley Richards http://books.google.com/books?id=KFdu4CyQ1k0C&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false Privileged Planet - Observability Correlation - Gonzalez and Richards - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5424431 The very conditions that make Earth hospitable to intelligent life also make it well suited to viewing and analyzing the universe as a whole. - Jay Richards Does the Probability for ETI = 1? - Hugh Ross Excerpt; On the Reasons To Believe website we document that the probability a randomly selected planet would possess all the characteristics intelligent life requires is less than 10^-304. A recent update that will be published with my next book, Hidden Purposes: Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, puts that probability at 10^-1054. http://www.reasons.org/does-probability-eti-1 Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross's book, 'Why the Universe Is the Way It Is'; Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ? 10^-1333 dependency factors estimate ? 10^324 longevity requirements estimate ? 10^45 Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ? 10^-1054 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe ? 10^22 Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles. http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium/compendium_part3.pdfbornagain77_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

Where did I lie? How do you know that no one believes that? That would mean you know what everyone believes, wouldnt it? Look bud, You are glossing over the ideas of abiogenesis. You think that your few sentences stating that abiogenesis is impossible, proves that it is impossible? No, again, another argument from ignorance. Do you have any evidence that this world is created by an intelligent designer? NO you dont. You have nothing.Joealtle_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT}

Joealtie. It's bad enough that you lie to us. The real disaster is that you lie to yourself. Just look at it from a rational perspective for a little bit. 1. No one believes in instant abiogenesis. We just don't see life appear spontaneously. If people sterilize an environment, and they find life in it. They assume contamination, not abiogenesis. 2. Now here is the kicker, life would have to originate by chance. OK, but wouldn't life being created once be enough to explain the existence of "climbing mount improbable". Here is the dirty little secret all real scientists know. You can't build a probability ratchet by random processes. This is because any process that can randomly move up the probability ladder, must have equal probability of moving down the probability ladder. But what about the great expanses of time. Time does not help you because you can't have random processes build a probability ratchet. All you get for great expanses of time is more fluctuations from equilibrium. We are obviously not a fluctuation from nothing. We live in a created universe. Only fools deny this.JDH_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

No buddy, again you genius IDers are taking my words out of context. The sickle cell example was about protein evolution. Anything else youd like to be wrong about?Joealtle_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

lifepsy @22, thanks for that, looking forward to watching.Chance Ratcliff_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

Joe, again, stop it please. We are embarrassed for you. You seem to be suggesting that mutation of DNA as in sickle cell is evidence for abiogenesis. You don’t seem to realize how utterly absurd this statement is. Surely you realize that mutation of DNA cannot explain how DNA arose in the first place. Again, it is abundantly evident that your commitment to Darwinism has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with blind faith. Please, do yourself a favor. Go read up on some of these issues before you comment on them.Barry Arrington_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

It most certainly is. Look at lysozyme and alpha-lactalbumin.Joealtle_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

Joealtle: Loss or slight modification of existing protein function does not explain the origin of a novel protein function. Does that really need to be spelled out for you? To all: Great lecture on how biology is destroying neo-darwinism. Someone left it in comment on that nature article. http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/video/physiology-and-the-revolution-in-evolutionary-biology/184lifepsy_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

Really? So mutation of DNA means nothing? Because Im pretty sure that is the basis of evolution of a protein, look at sickle cell disease. Or was that a joke? I hope it was a joke.Joealtle_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

Joealtle, scientists can't even demonstrate how a single protein evolves. Why so much blind faith in the darwinian campfire legends about the evolution of complexity which is magnitudes higher than that?lifepsy_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply