Evolutionist: Our Best Defense Against Anti-Science Obscurantism

_{Cornelius Hunter
May 30, 2011

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Evolutionists say undirected, random events, such as mutations, accumulated to create the entire biological world. An analogy once used for this claim is that of a room full of monkeys pounding away at typewriters and producing Hamlet. Today the analogy needs to be updated from typewriters to computer keyboards, but otherwise remains apropos. When the letters are selected at random, a page (or screen) full of text is going to be meaningless. And the problem is no easier in the biological world. Whether English prose or molecular sequences, the problem is that there are relatively few meaningful sequences in an astronomically large volume of possibilities. Nor does selection help because the smallest sequence that could be selected—such as a small gene—is not very small. All of this is rather intuitive and for centuries evolutionists have been trying to solve the problem. Their latest solution is being called natural genetic engineering. Read more

Comments

Hardly Bot, I think the pursuit of a purely material explanation of Life is a valid scientific endeavor, but what that endeavor cannot do (as it most surely has done) is act as if it has a record of success so overwhelming that any other paradigms should be either forgotten or impugned as a matter of professional discipline. - - - - - - KF has every right to point out the unsupported assumptions in this paper, and every other paper like it.Upright BiPed_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

Would you care to enumerate for us the demonstrations of evidence that lead to such confidence?
Nope, and as I already said many times, I'm an abiogenesis skeptic, but I'm also a rational empiricist who doesn't have any ideological objection to a method of creation where life emerges as a result of the universes design - I'm waiting with interest to see if the OOL research ever bears fruit.
materialists haven’t demonstrated squat
Apart from all the published research, but I'm pretty certain you consider that irrelevant :)DrBot_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

Dr Bot, what general areas of missing knowledge remain in the pathway to demonstrating abiogenesis? And, has this pathway already been sufficiently explored so as to be able to confidently publish books and papers, as well as producing endless public media accounts promoting the idea? Has the space become well enough understood to the point that belief/non-belief in the paradigm can be held as randsom for anyone who might wish to pursue a doctorate degreee in the field? Would you care to enumerate for us the demonstrations of evidence that lead to such confidence? - - - - - - In other words, its a freakin joke to tell KF to stop making assumptions and to get down on demonstrations instead. His point is that the materialists haven't demonstrated squat - except an incredible capacity to delude themselves past the details.Upright BiPed_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

but you keep on wanting to start with “assume a can opener,” when that is precisely what you cannot assume, to open the can on the desert island.
So you believe that starting with the assumption 'self replicating life exists' is unwarranted!
The can also see that there is simply no empirically well warranted evolutionary materialist account of the origin of such body plans based on being on those islands of function for the implied information.
assuming different body plans exist on isolated islands of function. The problem is that, as EL has indicated, this may not be a valid assumption you are making.DrBot_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

KF
See the problem
Not really, unless you were expecting this paper to provide a complete explanation of everything. It is, like most good science, an interesting piece of work that opens up many new avenues for investigation and begs many questions, not least: are their assumptions valid?
j –> This is chemistry on the computer, not in the real world
If they simulated monkeys at typewriters, and the simulation failed to produce Shakespeare, you would cite it as evidence in support of your own position. Simulation can be a very powerful tool but the fact that you can simulate physics, and make a simulated ball bounce in a realistic way, does not imply that the balls behavior can only be explained in terms of an intelligent agent. The whole point of a model of reality is that it is designed to accurately models reality. Pointing out that the model was designed is either missing the point, or illustrating a failure to understand the methods being employed. Simulations of weather are not evidence that God caused storms.
k –> Doubtless, as a result of all the fine tuning and setting up for success above: Intelligent design works
OR, that their model was a good model and they found something interesting that may be possible in real chemistry - if you believe they cheated, they got their result by fiddling the numbers, then don't just make the accusation - provide some evidence! The authors of the paper made several assumptions, as you pointed out. It's hard not to when doing exploratory research like this, maybe their assumptions were wrong but simply pointing out that they made assumptions contributes nothing unless you can give some solid reasons why their assumptions are invalid. This is a route to demonstrating that their work is not a good account: Demonstrate why their assumptions are invalid, don't just assume, demonstrate why they are wrong. This is one of the ways in which science advances.DrBot_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: By the time you are on an island of function, you are already looking at micro evo. Starting there with a functioning body plan begs he exact central questions of macroevo. I do not think we will agree on this matter, as I have stated it over and over, but you keep on wanting to start with "assume a can opener," when that is precisely what you cannot assume, to open the can on the desert island. We can simply note the deadlock, and note the reasons why I point to islands of function in beyond astronomically large config spaces as the critical unanswered issue faced by macro evo theories, starting with the first body plan, and going on to the multicellular body plans across the various kingdoms of life. I simply note for record that it is established that intelligence is empirically known to be capable of making objects exhibiting FSCO/I and it is the only such known entity. Similarly, Venter et al have given proof of concept that engineered life forms are possible, specifically. So, I can rest comfortably on the conclusion that the design inference is the superior explanation for the FSCO/I wee see in life forms. Onlookers can see for themselves that the crucial issue is that one has to get to an island of function before there can be hill-climbing by small variations within the island. The can also see that there is simply no empirically well warranted evolutionary materialist account of the origin of such body plans based on being on those islands of function for the implied information. In addition, they can see that the problem is basically assumed away. That is enough for the onlooker to see what is the true balance on the merits. And that after 150 years of trying, and billions in expenditure all around the world. So, the matter is not deadlocked, nor is there a want of warrant for a reasonable conclusion that design is the best scientific explanation on the table for the origin of life and major body plans. (Of course, that is in a context where a molecular nanotech lab several generations beyond Venter would be a sufficient causal force for what we see. This is not the same as an inference to a designer within or beyond the cosmos as we observe it. However, once the finetuning of the observed cosmos for C-chemistry cell based life is also in the stakes, it tends to support the worldvieew level conclusion that a designer beyond the cosmos is a reasonable position to hold.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

F/N: The paper, abstract: __________ >> Abstract The paper presents a model of coevolution of short peptides (P) and short oligonucleotides (N) at an early stage of chemical evolution leading to the origin of life. a --> At outset, a speculative model, but in a context of presumed abiogenesis on blind chance plus mechanical necessity The model describes polymerization of both P and N types of molecules on mineral surfaces in aqueous solution at moderate temperatures. b --> More or less the old clay bed model, but skips over the need to inform the polymer sequence relative to function in life. c --> a 300-monomer protein has 20^300 possibilities, and a comparable 900 monomer R/DNA would have 4^ 900 possibilities, i.e. functional states are going to be maximally isolated in the possibilities space de --> there are also some serious challenges to get the monomers in concentrations, and there are issues on chirality to be addressed [the two chiralities are energetically the same as a rule, on Enthalpy of formation, so the strong tendency is to form racemic 50-50 mixes. d --> Also, there are interfering cross-reactions from other substances likely to be present; in life forms, the chemistry is specifically constrained, e.g. in the ribosome, or basically no proteins would form. It is assumed that amino acid and nucleotide monomers were available in a prebiotic milieu, that periodic variation in environmental conditions between dry/warm and wet/cool took place and that energy sources were available for the polymerization. e --> Each of which is seriously questionable, and we have the problem of cross reactions etc as well. An artificial chemistry approach in combination with agent-based modeling was used to explore chemical evolution from an initially random mixture of monomers. f --> I.e intelligently designed It was assumed that the oligonucleotides could serve as templates for self-replication and for translation of peptide compositional sequences, and that certain peptides could serve as weak catalysts. g --> more of same Important features of the model are the short lengths of the peptide and oligonucleotide molecules that prevent an error catastrophe caused by copying errors and a finite diffusion rate of the molecules on a mineral surface that prevents excessive development of parasitism. h --> More questionable assumptions and constraints; NB: real world proteins and D/RNA are as a rule LONG chain . . . but a short chain gets you out of the problem of combinatorial explosion. i --> So, you have begged the key question, the exercise is fallacious The result of the simulation j --> This is chemistry on the computer, not in the real world was the emergence of self-replicating molecular systems consisting of peptide catalysts and oligonucleotide templates. k --> Doubtless, as a result of all the fine tuning and setting up for success above: Intelligent design works In addition, a smaller but significant number of molecules with alternative compositions also survived due to imprecise reproduction and translation of templates providing variability for further evolution. l --> All on a model that has begged the key questions In a more general context, the model describes not only peptide-oligonucleotide molecular systems, but any molecular system containing two types of polymer molecules: one of which serves as templates and the other as catalysts.The presented coevolutionary system suggests a possible direction towards finding the origin of molecular functionality in a prebiotic environment. m --> By begging the question. >> ___________ See the problem? I suggest instead a comparison of the materials here. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

Nothing Liz, feel free to ignore me. Ignore me, in the same way in which you ignored the onset of recorded information in the thread yesterday. The real details get messy... and they're harder to scrub clean with that Darwinian Dishsoap you're selling.Upright BiPed_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

What are you referring to, Upright BiPed?Elizabeth Liddle_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

The dumbfounding lack of curiosity, along with the level of sheer blind faith, is simply amazing.Upright BiPed_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

Selection doesn't "choose" anything, as I'm sure you are aware :) You can't (as I'm sure I've said elsewhere today, maybe not on this thread) tell other than statistically whether the reason a variant propagate is because of luck or real benefit. Some variants will propagate by sheer luck, and others, though beneficial, won't, again, through sheer luck. But if the effects in question are small we won't know which is which unless we run carefully controlled experiments. With larger effects, then yes, it's possible to figure out why an allele is resulting in greater fecundity. Often it isn't. But a sample size of 2 won't be enough :)Elizabeth Liddle_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

EL:
Variants that result in differential reproduction automatically means that selection has found things to select.
So if you have 3 children, and your neighbor had only two, selection chose you? Why did selection choose you? Perhaps your neighbor's husband died and she chose not to remarry.Mung_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

DrBot gave a better answer, above :)Elizabeth Liddle_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

Well, some algorithms self-replicate with variance, which is what a GA is. And crystals often form repetitive patterns from a random seed.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

above, algorithms describe a process, which can include replication, for example a genetic algorithm. Replication only happens when the algorithm is implemented in some form, for example as a piece of software.DrBot_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

How does that apply to algorithms? Algorithms replicate? Or crystals?above_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

above: The principle that if things replicate with variance,and some variants replicate better than others, the better replicators will come to dominate the population.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

oops, my slash key seems to be misbehavingDrBot_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

The interesting thing, of course, is that to some extent, intelligent interference with Darwinian processes in the form of genetic engineering leaves a fingerprint in the form of non-nested genetic hiearchies. But that unfortunately is not the unique fingerprint of intelligent interference - there are other natural (in the sense of non-intelligent) mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth: -"Although the interesting thing to me,now that we know so much more about heritability than Darwin could have dreamed, is that his principle also applies to things that we would hesitate to call “alive”, including crystals, algorithms, and postulated proto-bionts." Which principle? Can you be a little specific?above_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

mike1962
“evolution is entirely compatible with intelligently designed proto cells.” Evolution is likely entirely compatible with occasional intelligent intervention.
Yes, it's called selective breeding humans use their brains to influence the evolution of other animals.
DrBot_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

Mike1962:
Evolution is likely entirely compatible with occasional intelligent intervention.
Yes indeed, as is shown by the viable results of genetic engineering.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus, @ #43:
I repeat, the form of biological life to be explained is the only one we observe.
Yes indeed, but absence of evidence, especially when the absence of evidence is to be expected, is not evidence of absence. We may never know for sure what the forms of life (if any) were like that preceded the forms with which we are familiar,but we cannot conclude that they did not exist, and we may well find viable pathways that make their existence perfectly plausible. Secondly, until you have something capable of reproduction — until you are on an island of funciton, selection on differential reproductive success is simply off the table. Yes, within such an island, adaptation can happen, but that is irrelevant to the real challenge. Well, I don't think it is "off the table". In Darwin's words:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Darwin's theory is about what happened once life got started, not how it got started. Just because it is not a theory of something else does not mean it is not a perfectly valid and testable theory for what it is actually about. And, (IMO) it explains very well how variety could have evolved from "a few forms or one", whether or not they had had life breathed into them by a Creator. If ID is correct, one theory that is perfectly compatible with Darwinian evolution is the scenario that Darwin himself evokes - that of an Intelligent creator who first breathes life into a few forms, and then leaves them to evolve. Although the interesting thing to me,now that we know so much more about heritability than Darwin could have dreamed, is that his principle also applies to things that we would hesitate to call "alive", including crystals, algorithms, and postulated proto-bionts.
Until and unless you can show and warrant that you are able to get to those islands of function based on body plans including the first, with empirical observational support, what you have is just so stories, not true science.
No, I don't think we have "just so stories". We may well have as yet unsupported hypotheses, but there are lots of those in science. If there weren't, science would stop! And in fact we have a lot of evidence as to how genetic variation produces different "body plans". So I wouldn't even agree that the hypothesis is unsupported. We know what genes specify bilateral symmetry, for instance, as opposed to, say, radial symmetry, and what specifies numbers of segments, numbers of limbs, numbers of digits, etc. So there is plenty of empirical science going on, as we speak, to support specific evolutionary hypotheses, including hypotheses concerning the genomic changes that resulted in divergent body plans.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

likely = likewisemike1962_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

"evolution is entirely compatible with intelligently designed proto cells." Evolution is likely entirely compatible with occasional intelligent intervention.mike1962_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

EL:
There is nothing in Darwin’s theory that says that a minimal “seed” organism wasn’t intelligently designed, and designed in such a way that subsequent diversification would inevitably follow by Darwinian principles. So yes, Life could have been Designed to evolve. But that is compatible with Darwin’s theory. His theory was on the Origin of Species, not the Origin of Life. He specifically says so at the very end of the book.
KF:
I repeat, the form of biological life to be explained is the only one we observe. Secondly, until you have something capable of reproduction — until you are on an island of funciton, selection on differential reproductive success is simply off the table. Yes, within such an island, adaptation can happen, but that is irrelevant to the real challenge.
So just to be clear, you are not discussing evolution, you are discussing biogenisis, correct?
Until and unless you can show and warrant that you are able to get to those islands of function based on body plans including the first, with empirical observational support, what you have is just so stories, not true science.
only if you are discussing biogenesis, not if you are discussing evolution because as EL has already said, evolution relies on the existence of self replicators (something that has been empirically observed to exist) and evolution is entirely compatible with intelligently designed proto cells.DrBot_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: I repeat, the form of biological life to be explained is the only one we observe. Secondly, until you have something capable of reproduction -- until you are on an island of funciton, selection on differential reproductive success is simply off the table. Yes, within such an island, adaptation can happen, but that is irrelevant to the real challenge. Until and unless you can show and warrant that you are able to get to those islands of function based on body plans including the first, with empirical observational support, what you have is just so stories, not true science. WE KNOW THAT FSCO/I IS ROUTINELY PRODUCED BY INTELLIGENCE. And, analytically we know that functionally specific organisation and information, will be deeply isolated in the space of possible configs. Very easily, beyond the reach of chance based random walks backed up by trial and error success/failure. THAT IS THE CONTRAST ON INFERENCE TO BEST, EMPIRICALLY ANCHORED EXPLANATION THAT HAS NOT BEEN MET. What we see is a priori materialism imposed by the backdoor route of so-called methodological naturalism, and then defended by power tactics. In some cases, pretty dirty power tactics. I will comment on your paper later. GEM of TKI PS: A, please fix your tone.kairosfocus_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

As I type, 5 of the 6 entries under "Recent Posts" are by or about my friend Elizabeth. That makes even KF and BA77 look like pikers. KF--thanks for the encouragement. Next time save the manure for the shy and retiring plants.allanius_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

Thank you Elizabeth for your thoughtful response. -“So we can falsify the null hypothesis that “natural selection doesn’t result in evolution” by demonstrating that it does (and this has of course been done).” But in order to falsify a positive hypothesis, the hypothesis has to be very specific. So the hypothesis that “natural selection results in evolution” can’t be falsified – all we can do is “retain” the null.” That is precisely what my question was. If treated as the null, is natural selection falsifiable? The answer is obviously no, which means that it is a heuristic and not a scientific term. What bothers me from a philosophical stand-point about natural selection is that in this sense it can be morphed to describe anything. There is also an inherent circularity in the definition that compounds the problem even more. Finally, if you consider the numerous different definitions of ‘nature’, natural selection can become even more vague. I too believe that science does not progress via falsification alone. I think that scientific theories are very contextual and even incommensurable as my thinking about science is somewhat influenced by Khun, Lakatos and Feyerabend. I also think that the scientific community is also ridden with a lot of politics, which makes evaluation of theories even more difficult. If you don’t mind me asking, are you a biologist?above_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

Depends what you mean. I happen to be of the view that falsification isn't, in general, how science proceeds, except in the sense of "falsifying the null", and even there, it is probabilistic falsification. So we can falsify the null hypothesis that "natural selection doesn't result in evolution" by demonstrating that it does (and this has of course been done). But in order to falsify a positive hypothesis, the hypothesis has to be very specific. So the hypothesis that "natural selection results in evolution" can't be falsified - all we can do is "retain" the null. However we can falsify the specific hypothesis: "natural selection is the sole determinant of allele frequency change in a population". And that has been falsfied. We can also falsify the hypothesis: "all living things inherited their genome from a common ancestor" and again this has been falsified by horizontal gene transfer. So I'd say that very few scientific hypotheses are actually falsifiable, in the Popperian sense, and even then, only probalistically. What science does instead is fit models to data, and select the models that best fit the data, and reject those that fit worse. We can also compare the fits of alternative models directly, and reject the less-well-fitting model. This is probably as close as science regularly gets to falsification. So that's my take. Hope that helps :)Elizabeth Liddle_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply