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

inunison (#12) A real contribution. ThanksOccam_{July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

Upright (#10) Forgive me, for a moment I'm sinking to your level. It's about your reading comprehension. Re-read. I'm not saying the argument isn't there. I'm saying the theory isn't there. Big difference. So you literally laughed out loud - is that what disturbed your reading? Now back to objective matters. You skipped right over that "second quick misrespresentation of NS" from your first post. Okay, here is what I recall... The unchecked trend of populations would lead to exponential growth. But over most stretches of time populations remain relatively stable. Many (for some species most) individuals do not leave progeny. A characteristic that confers a competitive advantage for survival or for breeding will convey a better chance of contributing to the next generation. Over time, species become better fit for survival. Actually, it's a bit of a tautology, since we retroactively figure the survivors are better fit. Nonetheless, this is an important principle. By analogy, man has managed to shape the characteristics of domestic plants and animals by selecting which are allowed to breed or planting seeds of plants with desirable characteristics. The process in nature, a less deliberate mechanism with similar results of differential reproduction, was given the name "natural selection." Just a name, could have been Irving. Essentially, that's all there is to it. No magic. And by the way, nothing really new. NS is merely preservative, not creative. Without some other mechanism, the millionth generation will only have the same range of variability as the original. If there is misrepresentation here, you are invited to make the correction. As I admitted earlier, it's been easily two decades since my last reading. But don't just tantalize us with unsupported allegations.Occam_{July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

Matteo (#9) You caught me. I shouldn't have said "arguments," because the arguments are very well presented in the texts you reference. They argue against an existing theory (fine) and for a new theory. The only problem is that there is this rather persistent reference to an existing theory, as if the reader could dig it out if he only tried. If I were to suggest they - 1. Get your attention 2. State the case 3. Make the case They do 1 and 3 very well, but skip over 2. Again, it's fine if the argument goes there should be a theory, but it's not so fine to assert there is a theory - unless there really is.Occam_{July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

Matteo,
The problem with Natural Selection is that is merely another name for death, and as such is a destructive force, not a constructive one.
The creative power of death: Unless the tissue between your toes had been killed off you'd have been born with duck feet...Cabal_{July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

One thing we find rather striking about this post is the matter of perspective. Miller and Sober see too much wrong with nature for it to have been designed by God: the author seems somewhat neutral on the theodicy problem; others are bullish on the goodness of nature. And yet all are looking at the same evidence. This leads one to wonder if the way we see the evidence is not ultimately “scientific” but personal. Some look at nature and see an unholy mess. They are the heirs of Plato whose antipathy to nature suggests personal unhappiness and a longing for transcendence. Nietzsche captured this antipathy perfectly as “nausea,” a natural physical revolt at the unseemliness of nature. Nausea is the metanarrative seen in the gloom and skepticism of Dawkins, Provine, et al. But nausea is a personal reaction, not science for its own sake. It seems the way one feels about nature colors one’s view of nature, one’s perspective. Furthermore, nausea is strategic. All followers of Plato—idealists of all stripes, including nihilists—believe it is possible to obtain transcendence by annihilating the unhappiness that presently exists. In Nietzsche’s narrative, nausea is the means of annihilation. Its resistance to nature is regarded as a distinctive quality, something to be desired. Nausea singles one out as a superman who is naturally better than that which exists and is therefore capable of transcending nature and creating a sublime new order of things. Of course nausea was strategic in another way as well. In Nietzsche’s day, the prevalent metanarrative was Transcendentalism, which glorified Nature as the embodiment of the goodness of God. Nausea was Nietzsche’s way of overturning Transcendentalism and replacing it with a new narrative. What we see in the controversy over “junk DNA” does not seem to be science per se but a clash over metanarratives. Nausea has been the prevalent metanarrative for over a hundred years, but a countervailing narrative is currently attempting to establish itself in various guises, including ID and TE. ID has been successful in casting doubt on materialism, which makes it useful and encouraging to many believers. Overturning the metanarrative of nausea requires something more, however—a meta-narrator of the quality of Kant or Nietzsche himself.allanius_{July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

Occam (#4). My answers: a) First, what is the antipathy to natural selection as the means of preserving new species and dispensing with the old? No antipathy. NS can, in many cases, do that. b) Let’s forget the intelligent designer for the moment and concentrate on the outside implementer. OK, that's a good point. A designer might make ephemeral drawings, but what does the implementer do? Do new individuals suddenly appear out of protoplasm or firmament (and as a pair, or an entire flock?) or are they born of mothers of a different species? The implementer implements. Obviously it is possible that the designer and the implementer are two different agents, or just one. But I think your question is essentially: how is the design inplemented? That's really a good question, and I have discussed that point many times in this blog. First of all, I would like to point to the fact that it is really a couple of different questions, and it could be deconstructed as follows: 1) How does the designer - implementer interact with biological reality? 2) What are the modalities of implementation? How does it happen in time? How does it happen in space? Is it gradual, sudden? Is it realized on existing hardware (common descent) or not? And so on. The possible answers to 1) are many, and they depend obviously on some hypotheses about the designer. You must remember that the only thing we know for certain about designers is that they are conscious intelligent beings. One further point is: is the designer a physical being? Let's see. I would immediately exclude as implausible that designers of biological information are human beings from our planet. That obviously is circular, and there is no reason to make such a strange assumption. The alien scenarion, instead, is plausible, as even Dawkins admits. It is true that it does not solve the problem forever, but we can well do things one step at a time. So, in the alien scenario, we can well think that aliens interact with physical and biological realities exactly as we would do: by means of the physical interface of their physical bodies. If instead we hypothesize a designer - implementer whi is not a physical being, then we must assume that his consciousness interacts with matter in some other way. That's not really a big problem, because in human beings we have a good model of that. Indeed, whiel human beings certainly interact with the external world through their physical bodies, their personal consciousness certainly interacts with their body (and in particualr with their brain) in some other way. I beleieve that the best model for the direct interaction between consciousness and brain in human beings is based on QM principles, in the line of Eccles. So, if consciousness can directly interact with matter in humans, there is no reason why another consciousness (let's call it an immanent non physycal consciuosness of some other kind of conscious intelligent being) cannot do the same with biological matter. This is my favourite explanatory scenario. The possible answers to 2) are many. I can just tell you my personal favourite. My personal favourite is that the design implementation is continuous in time, but with rather sudden "acute" implementations in special occasions (OOL, Cambrian explosion, and similar). That's the scenario which better explains observed facts. And I do believe that the design implementation is nprobably realized starting form what has already been implemented (common descent). But, certainly, there are important discontinuities both in time and space in the general implementation plan. So, I am rather for a "Gould like" view of design implementation. And I believe that no basic physical law needs to be violated for design implementation to occur. c) I suppose the history of five major mass extinctions is accepted. Were these extinctions natural or deliberately caused, part of a larger plan? For example, if we followed the Yucatan meteor back through time, would it obey natural laws as we know them, or would there be a sudden, discernible nudge leading to a collision with earth? As far as I can understand, they were natural. Design is not especially needed to explain these things. d) Still on the extinctions. Why is the subsequent radiation of life forms based on the survivors that made it through that filter? Because NS exists. e) Does the outside implementer make an individual visit to earth for each individual species appearance – that’s a lot of visits! – or instead plant some “seeds” that initiate a subsequent chain of species? In short, how many separate creation events (meant in a non-pejorative sense) have there been? Will there be more? If not,why not? There is no special reason to think the designer - implementer has to "visit", except in the case of aliens. In the other scenarios (non physical intelligent consciousness) he could just be here all the time. As you can see, I am not thinking of "creation events", but of "implementation events". And I have already stated that, IMO, the implementation is probably both continuous and discontinuous. And for me, each new species is probably an implementation event. Most certainly, OOL and the metazoa explosions. But those are only the extreme form of sudden implementation. Will there be more? I don't know, but why not? And, in a sense, the continuous slow implementation is probably going on. That is for start. I hope I have been clear and explicit enough. I am looking forward to your feedback.gpuccio_{July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT}

Occam, Having any blog commenter's respect is in your hands and I have not seen you actually trying. We cannot engage your ignorance if you shield it behind bloated rhetoric. Be frank and specific. This is a blog and usually people engage the topic (or any permutation thereof) and respectfully agree or disagree with each other. It is that respect that all of us has to earn through our conduct. Its like any social engagement in life. One way to earn respect is if you actually show understanding of other commenter's arguments and opinions, before you agree or disagree.mullerpr_{July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
02:23 AM
2
02
23
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed and Matteo, "Do not feed the troll!"inunison_{July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
01:49 AM
1
01
49
AM
PDT}

"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. ..." And, oddly enough, almost invariably, the purported proofs of evolutionism are reported with such phrases as, “For the first time, scientists have observed ‘evolution’ …” and/or “Requiring us to totally rethink ‘evolution,’ …”Ilion_{July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT}

I never thought of natural curiosity as “politics” and I’m not sure what “beliefs” you would attribute to me, other than a belief in honest discourse. Already you’ve decided conversation should be confrontational, by the use of the word “opponent.” Not sure what ox I’ve gored, but then again I’m new here.
Oh Perfect! You can gaze at your otherwise ungamely feet and casually wonder what in the world the big issue is with your timid yet well-voiced post. After all, you front yourself with a transparent but self-serving sense of WTF. You specifically ignore any arguments from the other side, and instead you bravely hit the old strawmen and misrepresentations as if they matter. What a challengeing position for an ideologue to assume, right? Coming to a ID website and saying that ID proponents haven't done anything for the past twenty years (while deliberately ignoring the actual ID arguments being made) should under no circumstance be interpreted as "confrontational" on your part, should it? What better way to get at the truth, particularly under the banner of "honest discourse"? Right? pfft... Not to worry though. I will watch as you move forward. Others will do their damndest to engage you on the merits. I, on the other hand, took great notice of your opening line. You said "Another fine commercial. Now where’s the beef? I literally laughed out loud reading your selective post - the very measured, safe (and pathetic) route you took around the actual issues that matter. There could hardly be no clearer example of projection than your own first words. Where's the beef? Grow some cajones and address the evidence.Upright BiPed_{July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT}

Here’s your problem – if you refuse to tell the public just what your arguments are, how do you expect to gain acceptance?
What, pray tell, is wrong with the books by Dembski, Behe, Wells, Johnson, Berlinski, Meyer, Hunter, Wiker, Denton, Gonzales, et al, which lay out in great detail just what the arguments are? I know it can be difficult to learn things from books rather than blog comments, but what specifically is wrong with these works? Chapter numbers, page numbers, and some sign of actually having read the books carefully in their entirety should be provided; invocations of Ken Miller "refuting" all of these works in one 45 minute talk, and invocations of the fascinating new rule that science is to be adjudicated by Republican judges will not impress.Matteo_{July 5, 2010
July
07
Jul
5
05
2010
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT}

Hi there, BiPed, I never thought of natural curiosity as "politics" and I'm not sure what "beliefs" you would attribute to me, other than a belief in honest discourse. Already you've decided conversation should be confrontational, by the use of the word "opponent." Not sure what ox I've gored, but then again I'm new here. Actually, to go right to your final question, it seems to me that origins, rather than evolution, is a much richer target for ID. There seems to be such uncertainty about early geologic conditions, little or nothing preserved from deep time, that ID has a much bigger opening. Today an analogy occurred, that might or might not be the best. The engine of my car isn't self-starting. I can turn the key and wait the rest of my life, nothing happens. I spin it with the electric starter, the otto cycle kicks in, and we motor happily off. Evolution makes a lot of sense in looking at the progression of life, but the origin just seems a lot more iffy. ID might be better positioned to work the started than the cycle. I think the evolution story is pretty satisfactory to the average American. As we look at natural selection, add in genetic drift, the way life forms track with geological events, and it's pretty easy to follow a show on the Discovery Channel. And the narrator doesn't even have to get on a soapbox; it just makes sense. If somebody can come up with an alternate story line, I think we'll be more than willing to follow. But you can't just get by telling us you know something we don't - give us something to get our teeth into. Who knows, even practicing scientists might even come along, for the opportunity to get their names engraved on the resulting discoveries. I've looked back over my post and I'm not sure where I misrepresented NS. I did read Origin a couple of times, sure a few decades back, but it's pretty straightforward and I think I got it right. If you'll be specific about the misrepresentation, I'll accept your correction. Apparently you contend that "Darwinism" is a term from either science or common vernacular. It isn't a term I hear everyday, nor do I find it defined here. I recall from the 60s a popularization of "Social Darwinism," that, to my mind, was both ill-conceived and misbranded, but about all we hear about are the annual Darwin awards given to well-deserving individuals who remove themselves from the gene pool :) But I guess one thing I do believe is that "Darwinism" is a code word reserved for the cognoscenti. You allude to the Actual ID Arguments, which is essentially what I requested in the first place, without presenting them. Here's your problem - if you refuse to tell the public just what your arguments are, how do you expect to gain acceptance? Through your politicians, like Santorum? Any rate, if you'll stop talking down from your lofty position of superior knowledge and pass that knowledge along, you'll gain some respect and a friend. If you insist on demeaning, there is no hope for productive discourse.Occam_{July 5, 2010
July
07
Jul
5
05
2010
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

Occam, My-o-my arent you having fun! There doesn't seem to be any critique of actual ID arguments in your post. You'll surely recognize those; they are typically evidence based. Your post, instead, reads more like a American politically-inspired diatribe, as evidenced by the carefully chosen route to stay away from any tedious topics that might lead to a confrontation with actual evidence. This is not a bad thing in debating politics, of course. It is a payday to pick up the edges of your dress and go skipping through your opponents territory touching upon what you can - and avoiding the rest. You made it through to quickly hit the DI strawman and the natural selection misrepresentation. Oh, and look, you even got to hit the "Darwinism is just an ID term" button and also found a way to get "beliefs" isolated in scarequotes for good measure. And at the end you must have been channeling Richard Dawkins (only to miss the golden opportunity to use the word "elegant" or "powerful" in the description of your beliefs). And then you cap it all off with a second quick misrespresentation of NS for good measure. Good for you. Splendid politics. Now can you tell me how NS explains the presence of life on this planet?Upright BiPed_{July 5, 2010
July
07
Jul
5
05
2010
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

The problem with Natural Selection is that is merely another name for death, and as such is a destructive force, not a constructive one. Its fans keep speaking of it as a probability enhancer or probability multiplier, making possible that which pure chance could never accomplish. But this is akin to saying that the monkeys at the typewriters will more quickly produce Hamlet, provided you regularly massacre the majority of them. Now, that cannot possibly be right. And yet, it is, in essence, precisely what is being claimed for Natural Selection. One might object that Natural Selection gets its power from the fact of limited resources. My answer would be that calculation of odds should be done based on conditions of no resource limits in order to find the best case scenario of generation of features via chance. The fact of limited resources and concomitant Natural Selection can only lower these odds, not improve them. Such is the answer to those who tend to assert "but Natural Selection is the precise opposite of a random process!" as if that somehow helps. Such a retort is equivalent to arguing that just because a casino is guaranteed to pay out under certain conditions, therefore no gambling is taking place, and "chance" is not the primary factor.Matteo_{July 5, 2010
July
07
Jul
5
05
2010
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT}

Occam, It is clear that you misunderstand my comment. I am sorry for that, because your challenge did not elude me. I wanted to point to the fact that the fundamental scientific basis for an ID revolution in biology has already been laid. Fodor, was mentioned just because he expose the irrational foundation of Natural Selection as a mechanism. I did not present him as a "Newton" candidate. See you around.mullerpr_{July 5, 2010
July
07
Jul
5
05
2010
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

gpccio, A genuine thanks for the response. Look forward to the learning experience. Of course the source of my frustration is the authors you cite and their apparently deliberate avoidance of the issue. It's good to find a correspondent who is willing to share understanding. I'll try to put my questions in some semblance of order, although a couple that have been bothering me for years come first. First, what is the antipathy to natural selection as the means of preserving new species and dispensing with the old? Remember, natural selection did not address the means by which new species arise (mechanisms completely unknown in the 1800s), but only to the preservation of new characteristics. If not natural selection, what is it - bolts of lightening killing off the predecessors, force fields protecting the new ones? This problem vexes me more than any others. Let's forget the intelligent designer for the moment and concentrate on the outside implementer. Coco Channel could make all the drawings on paper she wanted, but nobody wore that paper. Some other folks had to cut fabric, sew pieces together, deliver product to the market, etc. A designer might make ephemeral drawings, but what does the implementer do? Do new individuals suddenly appear out of protoplasm or firmament (and as a pair, or an entire flock?) or are they born of mothers of a different species? I suppose the history of five major mass extinctions is accepted. Were these extinctions natural or deliberately caused, part of a larger plan? For example, if we followed the Yucatan meteor back through time, would it obey natural laws as we know them, or would there be a sudden, discernible nudge leading to a collision with earth? Still on the extinctions. Why is the subsequent radiation of life forms based on the survivors that made it through that filter? Does the outside implementer make an individual visit to earth for each individual species appearance - that's a lot of visits! - or instead plant some "seeds" that initiate a subsequent chain of species? In short, how many separate creation events (meant in a non-pejorative sense) have there been? Will there be more? If not,why not? Thanks, this will go a long way toward an understanding of what it is the ID community is trying to tell us. And by the way, I'm glad to note the extinction of that thermodynamics canard; misuse of science is not the best way to attract adherents. As for mullerpr's suggestions, With all due respect to Mssrs Shannon and Fodor, neither would qualify as the Newton of life sciences in my book. Newton dealt directly with the matters at hand, such as mass, acceleration, gravity, and his writing was readily applicable, as well as readable by the uninitiated. Shannon and Fodor might be adequate for the already-convinced, but to get the message to the general public (guys like me), we'll have to have a Sagan to tell us how to interpret their writing in this context. Newton might still be waiting in the wings.Occam_{July 5, 2010
July
07
Jul
5
05
2010
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

I would say ID needs a Newton and not a Darwin. Darwin's logic is so fundamentally flawed that ID has already surpassed the Darwinism, just by making a logically sound hypothesis. Occam, Read Jerry Fodor if you at least want to find a good reason to look for something better that Darwin's misguided (metaphysically compromised) dream. Personally I think that one day history books might be focusing on the awesome intellectual accomplishment of INFORMATION THEORY, that successfully started the revolution that ultimately exposed acts of intelligence where ever it instantiate in the physical world. If my prediction is correct Claude Shannon might be the Newton of the broader ID movement. Even though I am convinced that Claude Shannon's work is better described as "Pattern Theory", since it has no semantic relevance as he created it, I can already see how his work has become the cornerstone of quantitative investigations of all patterns caused by intelligent sources.mullerpr_{July 5, 2010
July
07
Jul
5
05
2010
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

Occam: There is a theory of ID. And it is rather detailed and specific. Maybe you have just come here, but be sure that on this blog many in depth discussions have been made about that theory. For instance, some interesting aspects have been debated in these same days on the thread about proteins. And, obviously, you can read the "classics": Dembski, Behe, Meyers, Berlinski and others. This is a blog. Sometimes the theosry in its various aspects is discussed, other times other issues, even unrelated, emerge. That's normal blog life. If you have specific questions, or comments, about ID theory, just ask. Somebody will answer.gpuccio_{July 5, 2010
July
07
Jul
5
05
2010
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

Another fine commercial. Now where's the beef? I came across this site by googling for "intelligent design," looking for evidence that a theory was emerging. Indeed, it contains a link to Intelligent Design that starts out, "The Theory of Intelligent Design holds..." Okay, so where's the theory? About 20 years ago I read an article in the Washington Post about a new theory. The thesis was that new evidence had come to light questioning evolutionary theory and that there was a new theory, one of "intelligent design" that was gaining adherence in the scientific community. As I recall, the article was largely favorable, so it whetted my appetite for this new knowledge. Over the years, I have occasionally picked up some books (e.g., Of Pandas and People, Icons of Evolution, the Design of Life) and explored web sites like Discovery Institute's and this, looking to find this new theory. All are replete with scorn for current evolutionary theory and passionate for their position, but none exposes the theory. The Design of Life expends 264 pages making what to a layman like myself appears a great case for an alternate theory, but neglects to expose any theory. ID literature is full of insider terminology, like Darwinism (what, as opposed to Lamarckism or Methodism?), that might or might not be intended to shut out the general public, but it makes the argument hard to follow It's also full of statements about "beliefs," when scientists as a whole aren't that much into belief, other than the scientific method. One "accepts" a theory as useful to their research, but it isn't that necessary to "believe" that a sub-atomic particle is a zero-volume something with mass and a scattering cross section in order to make use of these properties. If another, more useful, theory comes along, the practical (and the survivors) will adopt it. ID's constant PR campaign, without substance behind it, does nothing to enhance its credibility. It would be hard to imagine a Newton, or Darwin, or Einstein telling the world that they would have a new theory "any day now" for twenty years. These and all recognized scientific pioneers put the ideas forth first, then defended them - not the other way around. I remember reading "Origin of Species" in my 30s - there was no mention of evolution in my one semester of biology. What strikes the reader is the elegant simplicity of the idea of natural selection, along with Malthusian observation, analogy to deliberate selection and years of painstaking research that preceded publication. And what's particularly beautiful to the outsider is the way subsequent research and findings have let the theory evolve from the 19th century Englishman's view of the world into a seamless seamless fit with our ever-evolving understanding of geological history. ID desperately needs its own Darwin. The human intellect is naturally hostile to overly-complex explanations, as would be any ID model I could personally concoct. Parsimony has to be the watch word. Build a simple and elegant foundation, and as in the movie, "they will come." Until then, natural selection is the only game in town. Okay, IDers, I for one am tired. Quit beating the drum, roll up your sleeves and start to develop a theory for us.Occam_{July 5, 2010
July
07
Jul
5
05
2010
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply