Genomic Junk and Evolution

_{Cornelius Hunter

July 5, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Evolution was claimed to be an undeniable fact in the nineteenth century so today new proofs hardly seem necessary. But science continues to offer them up, say evolutionists, as we probe the depths of biology. These days a common source of such proofs is the genomic data which exploded onto the scene in recent decades. But are the new data really undeniable confirmations of Enlightenment speculation or are the new data merely interpreted according to the same old metaphysics? Read more

Comments

Venus Mousetrap: I don't know how I could be more clear. Sure, you’ve specified a function, but it’s the improbability of getting that function which determines ‘design’. Am I correct? This is exactly how I’ve seen people calculate design. No, you are not correct. the improbability just excludes that what we observe can be the result of random processes, having the appearance of specification. It allows design detection avoiding false positives. But in no way it "determines" design. How can I be more clear? In any case, why is saying ’specification = design’ any better? You say: "Specification. This is the real mark of design. Specified things are designed." Which is nice, but a flat assertion. It is not a flat assertion. I will try to explain why. I will refer, as usual, to functional specification, in thje sense of the definition I have given. The fact is, we observe design in humans. And, as we ourselves humans, and designers, we observe in ourselves the correspondence netween specific conscious representations and the act of design. For instance, if we are implementing a function in a software, we recognize that our implementation follows a conscious representation of that function, including a specific teleologic sense of waht the function should accomplish. Without those conscious representations, we could never design anything. The conscious observer who "recognizes" a function in the supposedly designed object is doing the same thing in the opposite way: he sees the implemented function, and he consciously represents the intentions of the designer of the object. The point is, the observer could be wrong: design can be simple, functions can be simple, but objects sometimes present the appearance of simple function withouy having been designed by a conscious being, just out of random events (or, in alternative, as the order deriving form a necessity mechanisms). Therefore, simple specifications are not guarantee that an object was designed by a conscious intelligent being. But complex specifications are Why? There are two reasons for that. One is probabilistic, the second purely empirical. The first is that complex specified sequences are such a tiny subset of all possible sequences that it is empirically "impossible" that they are produced by a random system. The second is that no non conscious system has been observed that is capable to generate new dFSCI, while conscious intelligent beings (humans) do that easily and all the time. So something is designed if an intelligence can find a function for it. How does that follow at all? I’m not saying it doesn’t, but ID never seems to answer these questions. I have tried to answer. True, but ID at least has to be consistent with common descent. ID is consistent with common descent. Where do you see any inconsistency? There are certainly some in the ID community who do not believe in common descent. But that does not mean that the ID theory is in any way inconsistent with it. Otherwise, I would not be here.gpuccio_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

Venus Mousetrap, I thought common descent had been settled? The evidence for common descent is the nested hierarchy of life, which does indeed show us the difference between lobsters and banana trees and spiders and whales in quite detail. The evidence for that does cover pretty much the whole biosphere (fossils, gene sequencing, and the like). Are you joking? It hasn’t been settled by a long chalk. “Nested hierarchies” is a tautology, it says, in effect, whatever will be will be, que sera sera. If there are differences among organisms, that is evidence of evolution, if there are similarities of organisms, that is evidence of evolution. For evolution is a comparative endeavor, and no matter what is found, similarities or differences, it will all be used as evidence for evolution. By this thinking, what wouldn’t be evidence? This is a sincere question, not meant to be rhetorical. True, the tree of life can move branches and species around, but it's quite easy to imagine animals that could never fit. You'll never get a griffon on there, because the ancestor of birds and lions is also the ancestor of birds and mammals, and no other mammals have wings. I fail to see what's tautological about the nested hierarchy, when it makes such demands about what an animal can be like. If you have antlers, you have to have hooves, an even number of toes, four legs, and a backbone. Failure to do so (or failure to provide evidence that you lost them) means that common descent is wrong. And that's before we get into genetics, which is even worse, because now you have to have matching genes as well!Venus Mousetrap_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

zeroseven,
Clive, why would you put Occam into moderation. He/her is way more civil than many of the pro ID commentators. He is having a very interesting and insightful discussion with gpuccio and now you have made it more difficult for that discussion to flow. I personally have found the discussion very illuminating. If you submitted the whole thread to a dispassionate and objective adjudicator, it would be StepenB and Upright Biped who would be found to be uncivil. That is presumably because they are threatened by Occam’s clear and reasoned arguments.
Nah, nothing of the sort. It was because he condescendingly claimed that Wells and Dembski needed to go back to school on a text of which he was admittedly not aware. Don't disparage the owner of a blog on the blog, are we clear?Clive Hayden_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

and yet material processes have never been observed generating any functional information WHATSOEVER.,,,,,
I haven't figured out why this statement keeps getting repeated.. Selection doesn't generate information, it transfers it. Information about what works is implicit in the nature of physics and chemistry. Information about what is competitive is implicit in the ecosystem (which is constantly changing).Petrushka_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler Quite a damning statement! Until Penzias and Wilson, physicists didn't understand the second law? Gamow's proposition was out there, but it was derisively titled by his detractors (Hoyle, I believe) until inadvertent physical evidence turned the tide. Somebody noticed that the frequency of the recently-discovered cosmic radiation background accorded with the leftover radiation that should have resulted from an initial explosion. But there wasn't a lot of clamoring for a solid theoretical basis for a "big bang" in the early 60s. Even Gamow's 1-2-3-Infinity, my pre-college introduction to the wonders of science and mathematics, only mentioned it as one of several possibilities. Poor George - if he had been awake his second semester sophomore he could have enjoyed more than a couple brief years of fame. The second law is mighty useful, but loaded. You might be aware that its misapplication was "proof" for creation scientists that evolution was impossible. I noted with satisfaction that I couldn't find it in the index of any of the three ID books here in the house. Fortunate we are that that argument has been purged.Occam_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

bornagain77:
In conjunction with the mathematical necessity of an “Uncaused Cause” to explain the beginning of the universe,
Can you show us the math?R0b_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

Clive, why would you put Occam into moderation. He/her is way more civil than many of the pro ID commentators. He is having a very interesting and insightful discussion with gpuccio and now you have made it more difficult for that discussion to flow. I personally have found the discussion very illuminating. If you submitted the whole thread to a dispassionate and objective adjudicator, it would be StepenB and Upright Biped who would be found to be uncivil. That is presumably because they are threatened by Occam's clear and reasoned arguments.zeroseven_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

bornagain77:
Rob, I made exactly one point in the post you originally responded to and that was that material processes (neo-Darwinism) can NEVER generate functional information.
The terms "material", "functional", and "information" have a large variety of definitions, most of which aren't scientifically useful. I have no interest in discussing equivocal claims, but Marks and Dembski's COI theorems are well-defined, and your understanding of them is unequivocally wrong. If you don't care about this fact, then by all means, carry on.R0b_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

gpuccio I notice you use the masculine pronoun referring to the designer-implementer. I assume that was merely a term of convenience, because otherwise that would imply sex, generations, mortality... The head begins to hurt real quick. Anyway, just an off-topic observation. Just a little more philosophy to get started. I'd like to confine the discussion (at least initially)to recent speciation, where the chances of finding physical evidence is greater - 200 million years or so. Origins give me a big problem. Origin of the universe may be beyond human ken, and origin of life might or not be also - although my hat's off to those that try - it's just too different for me to start with. On with your model. I'm also "Gould-like," in that major events shake an otherwise gradual world. Besides the mass extinctions we've already discussed, populations are split or introduced to new competitors, earth warms or cools significantly - the comfortable niche "suddenly" changes, and species change with it. After a time things settle out and species asymptotically approach their ideal fit; they don't change much for a long time. This is one of those retrospective "of course's" we should have anticipated. As you've already figured out, I'm for economy of assumptions. This is one factor that's kept me at odds with the notion of ID. Since no theory is stated, you can see from my initial questions, I couldn't see a simple answer - it just got more complex the more I thought about it. I see that you can envision a more economic model, and that gives a starting point. One point you didn't mention explicitly. From my admittedly lesser exposure, genetic drift and NS are sufficient for a plausible explanation of speciation. This would make the D-I superfluous. You buy NS, but apparently discard genetic drift as non-existent, insufficient or directed. Because of my undergraduate background (aided perhaps by popular movies of the time), I'm more accepting of the notion of cosmic radiation modifying genes that go into the bank, recessive, until conditions favor different characteristics. This is nicely supported by genetic distance correlating with passage of time. I could conceive of an agent directing the cosmic radiation, but notice you shy away from re-directing nature. So I expect to hear something on this topic. Would you believe that's about it for now? Your response may trigger additional questions, but I've run low - until awakening in the middle of the night. Now for the really bizarre. Years after graduation and last seeing my Department Head, I learned that he had subsequently served as President of the Creation Research Society. I hope his electricity and magnetism was sound, because I learned from his textbook. And the guy that taught introductory astronomy? Went to Institute for Creation Science and is also known for the rather bizarre suggestion that the universe is much smaller than it appears, because its geometry is Riemannian as opposed to Euclidean. [TalkOrigins site] I don't recall his mentioning this as he shown the flashlight pointing out Orion's belt, etc. Both, by the way, have (had) honorary PhDs.Occam_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler I really like your lucid explanation for the first cause and have referenced it right above this: In conjunction with the mathematical necessity of an "Uncaused Cause" to explain the beginning of the universe, in philosophy it has been shown that,,, "The 'First Mover' is necessary for change occurring at each moment. Michael Egnor - Aquinas’ First Way http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/jerry_coyne_and_aquinas_first.htmlbornagain77_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

Occam @ 30 "But I’ve been surprised before. Who would have expected the Big Bang to beat out an eternal universe?" Anyone who understood the second law of thermodynamics, for one. And anyone who understood logic, for two. And anyone who was willing to accept the theological implications of the empirical and logical exercises suggested by one and two. Most were not. If the universe was eternal (had no beginning) then maximum entropy would be reached by now. But it hasn't been reached by now, there is still usable energy in the universe. Therefore the universe had a beginning. Modus tollens. Valid form + true premises = sound argument = necessarily true conclusion. It can't be argued against (rationally). If the series of causes (or seconds) that terminates in the present never began (was infinite) then we wouldn't be here. But we are here. Therefore the series of causes and seconds that terminate in the present had a beginning. All causes in the antecedent chain of causes cannot be the same. The first one must be different. Why? Because every other cause in the chain had a prior cause. But the first cause cannot have a prior cause, else it wouldn't be FIRST. But we MUST have a first cause else we are saying that the chain of causes never began (is infinite) but this is clearly nonsense per the prior arument. This demands a qualitative difference for the first cause. The first cause must be uncaused, or eternal, since the other causes are caused, temporal, and finite.tgpeeler_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

Petrushka, the whole point in a nutshell is that the simplest life on earth is overflowing with functional information, functional information that exceeds the software programming ability of man, Believing Life's 'Signature in the Cell' an Interview with Stephen Meyer - CBN video http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/believing_lifes_signature_in_t035911.html and yet material processes have never been observed generating any functional information WHATSOEVER.,,,,, Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness - May 2010 Excerpt: Despite the theoretical existence of this short adaptive path to high fitness, multiple independent lines grown in tryptophan-limiting liquid culture failed to take it. Instead, cells consistently acquired mutations that reduced expression of the double-mutant trpA gene. Our results show that competition between reductive and constructive paths may significantly decrease the likelihood that a particular constructive path will be taken. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.2 ,,, Yet just by me writing this post I am demonstrating intelligence, though you might argue just how much intelligence I have, can generate more functional information than purely material processes over the entire history of the universe: Book Review - Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Excerpt: As early as the 1960s, those who approached the problem of the origin of life from the standpoint of information theory and combinatorics observed that something was terribly amiss. Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created. Now of course, elementary particles aren't chemical laboratories, nor does peptide synthesis take place where most of the baryonic mass of the universe resides: in stars or interstellar and intergalactic clouds. If you look at the chemistry, it gets even worse—almost indescribably so: the precursor molecules of many of these macromolecular structures cannot form under the same prebiotic conditions—they must be catalysed by enzymes created only by preexisting living cells, and the reactions required to assemble them into the molecules of biology will only go when mediated by other enzymes, assembled in the cell by precisely specified information in the genome. So, it comes down to this: Where did that information come from? The simplest known free living organism (although you may quibble about this, given that it's a parasite) has a genome of 582,970 base pairs, or about one megabit (assuming two bits of information for each nucleotide, of which there are four possibilities). Now, if you go back to the universe of elementary particle Planck time chemical labs and work the numbers, you find that in the finite time our universe has existed, you could have produced about 500 bits of structured, functional information by random search. Yet here we have a minimal information string which is (if you understand combinatorics) so indescribably improbable to have originated by chance that adjectives fail. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_726.htmlbornagain77_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Petrushka for genetic entropy to be falsified, a gain in functional information over and above what was already present in the parent species genome has to be demonstrated to be greater than what is possible from the universal probability bound, approx. 140 functional information bits per Durston: Mathematically Defining Functional Information In Molecular Biology - Kirk Durston - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995236 Functional information and the emergence of bio-complexity: Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak: Abstract: Complex emergent systems of many interacting components, including complex biological systems, have the potential to perform quantifiable functions. Accordingly, we define 'functional information,' I(Ex), as a measure of system complexity. For a given system and function, x (e.g., a folded RNA sequence that binds to GTP), and degree of function, Ex (e.g., the RNA-GTP binding energy), I(Ex)= -log2 [F(Ex)], where F(Ex) is the fraction of all possible configurations of the system that possess a degree of function > Ex. Functional information, which we illustrate with letter sequences, artificial life, and biopolymers, thus represents the probability that an arbitrary configuration of a system will achieve a specific function to a specified degree. In each case we observe evidence for several distinct solutions with different maximum degrees of function, features that lead to steps in plots of information versus degree of functions. http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Hazen_etal_PNAS_2007.pdf The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP) - Abel - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility. A precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified. But can something so seemingly relative and subjective as plausibility ever be quantified? Amazingly, the answer is, "Yes.",,, c?u = Universe = 10^13 reactions/sec X 10^17 secs X 10^78 atoms = 10^108 c?g = Galaxy = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^66 atoms = 10^96 c?s = Solar System = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^55 atoms = 10^85 c?e = Earth = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^40 atoms = 10^70 http://www.tbiomed.com/content/6/1/27bornagain77_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

gpuccio: Venus Mousetrap: Very simply: a) ID doesn’t search for ‘patterns’, but rather for ‘improbability’, which is considered to be equivalent to design. I am sorry, but that is completely wrong. It’s strange that you have not yet caught this fundamental concept, having been here for so long. Certainly our fault, we must be very bad at explaining ourselves…" "The ID model states that complex specification ia always the product of design, while simple specification can be the result of a random system or of necessity (taking in consideration Kolmogorov complexity is a way to exclude necessity too). Then why does the amount of complex, specified information (which, I am told, is the indicator of design) correlate with the improbability? We both know the formula: take the negative log of the ratio of possible organisms with a specified function, to all possible organisms. Sure, you've specified a function, but it's the improbability of getting that function which determines 'design'. Am I correct? This is exactly how I've seen people calculate design. In any case, why is saying 'specification = design' any better? You say: Specification. This is the real mark of design. Specified things are designed. Which is nice, but a flat assertion. an object is fucntionally specified if a conscious intelligent agent can recognize and explicitly define a function for it So something is designed if an intelligence can find a function for it. How does that follow at all? I'm not saying it doesn't, but ID never seems to answer these questions. And they're not difficult. They're the foundation of the theory, the reason ID exists and the reason people want it accepted. I agree that common descent is true. But that has nothing to do with the causal explanatory model of biological information. True, but ID at least has to be consistent with common descent. Darwinian evolution, whether it is true or not, would be precisely consistent with it, since descent is a part of it, so the model at least passes that check. Venus: c) I don’t believe any of this is objectionable – to my knowledge, ID accepts all this as true – it doesn’t believe it counts as evidence for evolution for some reason. All this is true, And all this in no way counts as evidence for the neo-darwinian causal model. Then I say that specification, improbability and complexity in no way count as evidence for design, on the grounds that there isn't even a causal link. Why is the design inference superior to a Darwinian one, which at least is proven on some scale to be true?Venus Mousetrap_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Occam,
I note there seems to be agreement among the IDers posting here that ID is about origins, rather than evolution, so surely the theory, wherever it is stated, would make this point clear.
I suppose that is where you're mistaken. All of the work, for instance, in the Evolutionary Informatics Lab pertain to the information component in evolutionary searches, which has to come from an intelligent source. That's directly dealing with evolution. I'm not really sure why you thought ID and evolution to be ships passing in the night, not noticing each other.
Well, when you have a theory, it makes sense to state it up front, like perhaps Chapter 1, then subsequently defend it. If you believe it is stated in Chapter 1, or anywhere else, give us the page number.
You wrote as if you didn't know what the book says, and then criticized what the authors said as needing more schooling for clarity and brevity. This is, of course, impossible. You cannot criticize unless you know what you're criticizing, or else it is not actually critical. I don't know what you know or don't know about any book at all, but this train of argument is incoherent and quite frankly rude, and my comment back to you, stating you needed more schooling was simply an illustration of that incivility, so you can see the error of employing it here. That's why you're now in moderation.
No, Clive, what you’re looking for isn’t here. This is why I was laudatory about gpuccio’s post. He’s willing to expose and discuss a specific model and take the risk of specific rejection, or conversely convince his correspondent that he has a model worth considering. That sure ain’t in Dembski and Wells.
I'm not looking for anything. It's you that was criticizing something that hinged on an "if", an "if" that told me you don't actually know what you're criticizing.Clive Hayden_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

Rob, I made exactly one point in the post you originally responded to and that was that material processes (neo-Darwinism) can NEVER generate functional information. If you disagree with the point I originally made present the evidence.bornagain77_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Rob, please give me just one example in biology where genetic entropy has been clearly and unambiguously falsified.
If the continued viability of microbes doesn't falsify genetic entropy, then I fail to see what would. You, yourself, have argued that there are currently living microbes that are unchanged for hundreds of millions of years.Petrushka_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

Venus Mousetrap,
I thought common descent had been settled? The evidence for common descent is the nested hierarchy of life, which does indeed show us the difference between lobsters and banana trees and spiders and whales in quite detail. The evidence for that does cover pretty much the whole biosphere (fossils, gene sequencing, and the like).
Are you joking? It hasn't been settled by a long chalk. "Nested hierarchies" is a tautology, it says, in effect, whatever will be will be, que sera sera. If there are differences among organisms, that is evidence of evolution, if there are similarities of organisms, that is evidence of evolution. For evolution is a comparative endeavor, and no matter what is found, similarities or differences, it will all be used as evidence for evolution. By this thinking, what wouldn't be evidence? This is a sincere question, not meant to be rhetorical.
The mechanism of change is what people are arguing over, and that’s where ‘different hair color’ comes in.
They are certainly arguing over that too. It seems peculiar to argue for common descent by finding a way that common descent happened. You would need to know how it happened, in order to argue for it, without arguing in a circle and begging the question.
I’m not saying that science has it right when they extrapolate from models of evolution, and the evidence of small scale evolution, although I do believe that science is correct
Extrapolation is not science, for it doesn't physically exist. It's a belief of a scientist, an abstraction, a philosophy, which can either be justified, or not, depending on levels of evidential criteria, and on this question, which is a question of a man's ability to reason, scientists have no special ability compared to any other man. Reason is given to all men, and on this having a scientific training gives a man no added ability or advantage in his reasoning. I find that the extrapolation argument is so far flung and faulty as to be regarded as nonsensical, because it is based on belief, not actual evidence, and that is improper in science. My analogy is absurd, but so is the extrapolation argument, that's why the analogy actually fits this type of thinking.
There was a scientist once who suggested that in the absence of an external force, a body will remain in motion, and this holds true whether it’s travelling a metre or a light year. In other words, his model held this to be true, in the same way that evolution holds the accumulation of mutations to be true. It is the testing of the theory which tells us whether the model is viable or not.
But this little incident has always lingered in my mind as a sort of parable. Most modern histories of mankind begin with the word evolution, and with a rather wordy exposition of evolution, for much the same reason that operated in this case. There is something slow and soothing and gradual about the word and even about the idea. As a matter of fact it is not, touching these primary things, a very practical word or a very profitable idea. Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more logical to start by saying 'In the beginning God created heaven and earth' even if you only mean 'In the beginning some unthinkable power began some unthinkable process.' For God is by its nature a name of mystery, and nobody ever supposed that man could imagine how a world was created any more than he could create one. But evolution really is mistaken for explanation. It has the fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand it and everything else; just as many of them live under a sort of illusion that they have read the Origin of Species. But this notion of something smooth and slow like the ascent of a slope, is a great part of the illusion. It is an illogicality as well as an illusion; for slowness has really nothing to do with the question. An event is not any more intrinsically intelligible or unintelligible because of the pace at which it moves. For a man who does not believe in a miracle, a slow miracle would be just as incredible as a swift one. The Greek witch may have turned sailors to swine with a stroke of the wand. But to see a naval gentleman of our acquaintance looking a little more like a pig every day, till he ended with four trotters and a curly tail would not be any more soothing. It might be rather more creepy and uncanny. The medieval wizard may have flown through the air from the top of a tower; but to see an old gentleman walking through the air in a leisurely and lounging manner, would still seem to call for some explanation. Yet there runs through all the rationalistic treatment of history this curious and confused idea that difficulty is avoided or even mystery eliminated, by dwelling on mere delay or on something dilatory in the processes of things. There will be something to be said upon particular examples elsewhere; the question here is the false atmosphere of facility and ease given by the mere suggestion of going slow; the sort of comfort that might be given to a nervous old woman traveling for the first time in a motor-car..... SCIENCE is weak about these prehistoric things in a way that has hardly been noticed. The science whose modern marvels we all admire succeeds by incessantly adding to its data. In all practical inventions, in most natural discoveries, it can always increase evidence by experiment. But it cannot experiment in making men; or even in watching to see what the first men make. An inventor can advance step by step in the construction of an airplane even if he is only experimenting with sticks and scraps of metal in his own backyard. But he cannot watch the Missing Link evolving in his own backyard. If he has made a mistake in his calculations, the airplane will correct it by crashing to the ground. But if he has made a mistake about the arboreal habitat of his ancestor, he cannot see his arboreal ancestor falling off the tree. He cannot keep a caveman like a cat in the backyard and watch him to see whether he does really practice cannibalism or carry off his mate on the principles of marriage by capture. He cannot keep a tribe of primitive men like a pack of hounds and notice how far they are influenced by the herd instinct. If he sees a particular bird behave in a particular way, he can get other birds and see if they behave in that way; but if be finds a skull, or the scrap of a skull in the hollow of a hill, he cannot multiply it into a vision of the valley of dry bones. In dealing with a past that has almost entirely perished he can only go by evidence and not by experiment. And there is hardly enough evidence to be even evidential. Thus while most science moves in a sort of curve, being constantly corrected by new evidence, this science flies off into space in a straight line uncorrected by anything. But the habit of forming conclusions, as they can really be formed in more fruitful fields, is so fixed in the Scientific mind that it cannot resist talking like this. It talks about the idea suggested by one scrap of bone as if it were something like the airplane which is constructed at last out of whole scrapheaps of scraps of metal. The trouble with the professor of the prehistoric is that he cannot scrap his scrap. The marvelous and triumphant airplane is made out of a hundred mistakes. The student of origins can only make one mistake and stick to it. We talk very truly of the patience of science; but in this department it would be truer to talk of the impatience of science. Owing to the difficulty above described, the theorist is in far too much of a hurry. We have a series of hypotheses so hasty that they may well be called fancies, and cannot in any case be further corrected by facts.... G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man.Clive Hayden_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

bornagain77, I made exactly two points in my comment. (1) You misunderstand Marks and Dembski's COI, and (2) Gitt's concept of information is not scientifically formulated. Your reply is not at all responsive to those points. Do you agree with them or not?R0b_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

Rob, please give me just one example in biology where genetic entropy has been clearly and unambiguously falsified.bornagain77_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

Clive (#49) Do you understand what I’m writing? Well no, not where you're claiming something that isn't there. It should be a safe assumption that you, as well as the majority of the ID posters here, should surely be thoroughly familiar with this authoritative source. I note there seems to be agreement among the IDers posting here that ID is about origins, rather than evolution, so surely the theory, wherever it is stated, would make this point clear. Well, when you have a theory, it makes sense to state it up front, like perhaps Chapter 1, then subsequently defend it. If you believe it is stated in Chapter 1, or anywhere else, give us the page number. It's worth noting the last paragraph of Chapter 1 begins, "Design theorists have not reached a conclusion about how humans emerged." Well, that stands to reason if evolution is outside the domain of interest. Chapters 2-7 systematically challenge the various assumptions and findings of evolutionary theory. OK, fine, but where is ID theory in all this? As a matter of fact (yeah, a verifiable observation), Chapter 5 concludes... Common ancestry in combination with common design can explain the similar features that arise in biology. The real question is whether common ancestry apart from common design - in other words, materialistic evolution - can do so. The evidence of biology increasingly demonstrates that it cannot. How's that again? Here we are back in evolution. But if your reading skills are so advanced, you know there's a theory in there somewhere and that it addresses a different subject than common ancestry. So why is this paragraph even here? No, Clive, what you're looking for isn't here. This is why I was laudatory about gpuccio's post. He's willing to expose and discuss a specific model and take the risk of specific rejection, or conversely convince his correspondent that he has a model worth considering. That sure ain't in Dembski and Wells.Occam_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

bornagain77:
In fact this problem is so acute, of mutations always degrading preexisting “optimal” information found in the genomes of parent species that it has been made into a law of science by Dr. Dembski and Dr. Marks. It is called the Conservation Of Information (COI).
You and kairosfocus are laboring under the same misconception. Degradation of information is not an example of Marks and Dembski's COI concept. Rather, it's an indication that their COI does not apply to the given situation. Every COI theorem that they present, including the three in the paper that you cited, assumes a uniform probability distribution. That is, their math is applicable only to maximum entropy conditions, i.e. equilibrium. Under such conditions, information neither increases nor decreases. Information loss is just as much a violation of their COI as information gain.
His challenge to scientifically falsify this statement has remained unanswered since first published.
That's because the statement itself isn't scientifically formulated. If you disagree, then please provide an operational definition for Werner Gitt's concept of "information".R0b_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

---Venus Mousetrap: "The darwinian explanation is at least consistent with this. It’s also observable on small scales with things like bacteria. I don’t believe any of this is objectionable – to my knowledge, ID accepts all this as true – it doesn’t believe it counts as evidence for evolution for some reason. That’s a long way from there being ‘no evidence." I didn't say that there is no evidence for "evolution" nor did I say that Darwinistic processes cannot generate small changes. Please try to grasp the nature of the debate. There is some evidence for common descent. There is no evidence at all that Darwinian processes caused it to happen. Hence, the unassailable claim: Darwinism---no evidence.StephenB_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

"That the whole of the biosphere, that every single thing that has ever lived shares the same single-celled great great great (etc.) grandparents, has to have a lot more evidence than children being born with different hair and eye colors than their parents. If I jump two feet in the air while flapping my arms, and then I point to an eagle flying, and say that his flying is just more of the same of my flying, I’m not, in reality, really saying anything at all. Different hair color and common descent are not the same, and common descent is not more of the same sort of thing. It’s very different, and needs its own evidence, not just just-so “evidence” by a vast extension of hair color difference among children. We’re talking about the difference between shrimp and man, the difference between a lobster and a banana tree, a spider and a whale. That’s certainly not just more of the same as you would see with children having different hair color." I thought common descent had been settled? The evidence for common descent is the nested hierarchy of life, which does indeed show us the difference between lobsters and banana trees and spiders and whales in quite detail. The evidence for that does cover pretty much the whole biosphere (fossils, gene sequencing, and the like). The mechanism of change is what people are arguing over, and that's where 'different hair color' comes in. I'm not saying that science has it right when they extrapolate from models of evolution, and the evidence of small scale evolution, although I do believe that science is correct. My point was that saying there is 'no evidence' is absurd. There clearly is evidence, but ID finds reason to reject it. For good reason? Who can say. I also disagree with your flying analogy. There was a scientist once who suggested that in the absence of an external force, a body will remain in motion, and this holds true whether it's travelling a metre or a light year. In other words, his model held this to be true, in the same way that evolution holds the accumulation of mutations to be true. It is the testing of the theory which tells us whether the model is viable or not.Venus Mousetrap_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

Concerning gravity, there are actually many theories explaining why gravity happens. Gravity is a fact, but its origin/cause is the theory. Same with life. Life exists, but what caused it? Where is its origin? With respect to gravity, there is a scientific concensus, but I have the feeling that minority viewpoints are not disparaged but carefully considered, even if not widely adopted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Recent_alternative_theoriesCollin_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

Venus Mousetrap, Tell me how many bad and very bad genetic mutations survive and how many good and very good mutations have been observed to survive at all? Just give us your best informed guess about the ratio. Bad mutation vs. Good mutation being transferred to new generations.mullerpr_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

That the whole of the biosphere, that every single thing that has ever lived shares the same single-celled great great great (etc.) grandparents, has to have a lot more evidence than children being born with different hair and eye colors than their parents.

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.”
The Edge of Evolution, pp 71-2. The evidence for common descent is of exactly the same kind and quality as the evidence used to confirm paternity in courts of law.Petrushka_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

---Graham: A ‘theory’ as used in Science, is a set of ideas that are very widely accepted." A theory is an explanation. It's very simple really. The question is this: What is the source of the information found in a cell? Answer: ID. The best explanation is intelligent agency. Answer: Darwinism. The best explanation is Random variation and natural selection, UNTIL that explanation is found to be inadequate, at which time new explanations are added in the name of modification as each of the former explanations are found to be inadequate. Evidence for ID--- design patterns in nature Evidence for Darwinism--- none. Indeed, it is because Darwinists have no evidence that they always change the subject from Darwinistic theory to ID theory when Darwin is on trial--just as they did with this thread. If you hadn't noticed, it was about Darwinistic inadequacy not ID theory.StephenB_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

Venus, to echo Clive's concern with this statement of yours:
Still, we do know that common descent is true, and that mutations are what cause children to be different from parents, so that is clearly where the ‘design’ is happening. The darwinian explanation is at least consistent with this. It’s also observable on small scales with things like bacteria. I don’t believe any of this is objectionable – to my knowledge, ID accepts all this as true – it doesn’t believe it counts as evidence for evolution for some reason. That’s a long way from there being ‘no evidence’.
Your main "evidence" for common descent (the assertion that all life comes from bacteria) is that children are slightly different from their parents??? but when we look closer to see if mutations, and selection, are truly increasing genetic information in the human races we find your premature assumption in not true: "We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.- Moreover, The evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for scientists have already cited over 100,000 mutational disorders. Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design - Pg. 57 By John C. Avise Excerpt: "Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens." I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found: HGMD®: Now celebrating our 100,000 mutation milestone! http://www.biobase-international.com/pages/index.php?id=hgmddatabase I really question their use of the word "celebrating". "Mutations" by Dr. Gary Parker Excerpt: human beings are now subject to over 3500 mutational disorders. (this 3500 figure is cited from the late 1980's) http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-mutations.asp This following study confirmed the "detrimental" mutation rate for humans per generation, of 100 to 300, estimated by John Sanford in his book "Genetic Entropy" in 2005: Human mutation rate revealed: August 2009 Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome. (Of note: this number is derived after "compensatory mutations") http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090827/full/news.2009.864.html This mutation rate of 100 to 200 is far greater than even what evolutionists agree is an acceptable mutation rate for an organism: Beyond A 'Speed Limit' On Mutations, Species Risk Extinction Excerpt: Shakhnovich's group found that for most organisms, including viruses and bacteria, an organism's rate of genome mutation must stay below 6 mutations per genome per generation to prevent the accumulation of too many potentially lethal changes in genetic material. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071001172753.htm Venus, as far as you saying we "observe this on small scales with bacteria, that is in fact false for we have never witnessed a bacteria generate functional information (beneficial mutations) greater than the functional information that was present in the parent species bacteria; List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria: http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp The Sheer Lack Of Evidence For Macro Evolution - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4023134 In fact this problem is so acute, of mutations always degrading preexisting "optimal" information found in the genomes of parent species that it has been made into a law of science by Dr. Dembski and Dr. Marks. It is called the Conservation Of Information (COI). LIFE'S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information http://evoinfo.org/publications/lifes-conservation-law/ further note: “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.” Werner Gitt, “In the Beginning was Information”, 1997, p. 106. (Dr. Gitt was the Director at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology) His challenge to scientifically falsify this statement has remained unanswered since first published. Random Mutations Destroy Information - Perry Marshall - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4023143 etc.. etc.. etc..bornagain77_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

Venus Mousetrap: Very simply: a) ID doesn’t search for ‘patterns’, but rather for ‘improbability’, which is considered to be equivalent to design. I am sorry, but that is completely wrong. It's strange that you have not yet caught this fundamental concept, having been here for so long. Certainly our fault, we must be very bad at explaining ourselves... So, let's try again. Design detection is based on two concepts: 1) Specification. This is the real mark of design. Specified things are designed. Specification comes in different forms, but for our discussion I will use only the type which is important for biological information: functional specification. And here is my definition: an object is fucntionally specified if a conscious intelligent agent can recognize and explicitly define a function for it, possibly define also a way to measure that function, and usually a conventional threshold by which the fucntion can be evaluated in binary form (0 = absent; 1 = present). Again, I repeat: specification is the mark of design, not complexity. All things which are truly specified are designed. Unfortunately, the recognition of specification can be subject to errors. False negatives are always possible (the function can be there, but the observer is not able to recognize it: think of an observer who observes a string which means something in a langiage which is completely unknown to the observer). There is no way to get rid of false negatives, so there is no way t be sure that we can detect all designed things. But what about false positives? We can tolerate false negatives, because we can be happy with recognizing only part of designed things, but false positives are a bigger problem, because if we have false positives that means we recognize as designed things which are not. So, we must get rid of false positives, if the concept of design detection has to be scientifically useful. That's where the second concept is useful: 2) Complexity. Complexity is in no way a marker of design. Design can well be simple. Complexity is necessary only to get rid of false positives. It frees us of what we could call "pseudo-specification", or "pseudo-function": something which seems to be functional, not because it was designed to that purpose, but because randomly, or as the result of laws of necessity, it got the appearance of specification through completely non conscious, non intelligent processes. The ID model states that complex specification ia always the product of design, while simple specification can be the result of a random system or of necessity (taking in consideration Kolmogorov complexity is a way to exclude necessity too). So, as you can see, complexity and improbability have nothing to do with design itself, but are necessary to define "detectable design". But the mark of design is specification. So, ID is searching for patterns. Functional specification is a pattern. And I can discuss in any detail why dFSCI (digital functionally specified complex information) is best explained by design. b) Still, we do know that common descent is true, and that mutations are what cause children to be different from parents, so that is clearly where the ‘design’ is happening I agree that common descent is true. But that has nothing to do with the causal explanatory model of biological information. And random mutations are certainly responsible of what is usually called "microevolution", and of a lot of genetic diseases too. But they have nothing to do with the design of biological information. c) I don’t believe any of this is objectionable – to my knowledge, ID accepts all this as true – it doesn’t believe it counts as evidence for evolution for some reason. All this is true, And all this in no way counts as evidence for the neo-darwinian causal model. d) That’s a long way from there being ‘no evidence’. Why? If it is no evidence, it is no evidence. Why do you think it is evidence of something? It is not.gpuccio_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply