Dr Gunter Bechly is a palaeontologist who became convinced that Darwinian evolution cannot explain the fossil record. He debates Intelligent Design with computational biologist Dr Joshua Swamidass who affirms an evolutionary account.
Note: If we’re thinking of Joshua Swamidass anyway, J. R. Miller comments on his book, Genealogical Adam and Eve:
Swamidass’ Theory is a Mathematical Shell Game We have all seen the shell game played out on TV and movies. There is some street hustler who has three shells and one ball. He places the ball under one shell and shuffles them around. If you want to win the game, you have to pick the shell that conceals the ball. But we all know that you can’t really win the game. Why? Because it’s a game of misdirection. In fact, the ball is not really under any of the three shells. It is hidden in the palm of the hustler’s hand ready to be placed anywhere he likes. I don’t mean to call Swamidass a hustler (that takes my analogy too far), but I do think he is playing the shell game.
I think this shell game is a fair analogy to Swamidass’s theory of human origins because Swamidass hides the ball of “ancestry” behind the many shells of population genetics. When the Apostle Paul says that Adam and Eve are the ancestors of of us, he means something very different than does Swamidass. Instead of shells, Swamidass uses a computer model based on population genetics to hide the ball of ancestry. And while this claim that the ball is somewhere under the shells may be statistically meaningful, in practical terms it is meaningless. In his book, Is Science Racist?, Jonathan Marks raises this very point. Not directly about Swamidass, but about how folks play the game of “ancestry” using mathematical models…
J.R. Miller, “Misconceptions about Swamidass’ Genealogical Adam and Eve” at More Than Cake (June 18, 2021)
Maybe another debate?
Since Darwinists, (and I include Swamidass when I say Darwinists), hold that mutations to DNA are the primary driving force of evolution, (with Natural Selection, thereafter, playing a major role in the modern synthesis, (i.e. Neo-Darwinism), and with Natural Selection, thereafter, playing a negligible role in Neutral theory), one would think that Darwinists would have fairly compelling evidence for mutations to DNA being the primary driving force of evolution as they envision it to be.
Yet, one would be wrong in that presupposition.
Darwinists simply have no empirical evidence whatsoever that mutations to DNA can lead to new species and/or major morphological changes.
In the following paper, Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, states that ‘Bacteria are ideal for this kind of study, But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another,’
And as Jonathan Wells states in the following article, “studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly.”
And here is an excellent powerpoint presentation by Dr. Jonathan Wells, starting around the 15:00 minute mark, showing that the central dogma of Darwinian evolution, which simply stated is “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us”, is incorrect at every step.
Moreover, as the following fairly recent article pointed out, “biological form, was eventually excluded from the conceptual framework of the Modern Synthesis as irrelevant.,,,”
Excuse me, “Irrelevant?”
Really?,, Hmmm.
Others, (who are not so enamored with the prospect of just taking it on ‘blind faith’ that mutations to DNA can explain major transformations of biological form), might not be so flippant as to disregard this major omission of biological form from the conceptual framework of Neo-Darwinism as irrelevant.
Indeed, the only thing that this glaring omission of biological form from the modern synthesis truly renders irrelevant is Darwinian evolution itself.
Darwinists can pretend they are being scientific all day long, but they simply have no mechanism to explain biological form, much less do they have any mechanism to explain major ‘transformations of form’.
Whereas, on the other hand, as ID advocates, we witness Intelligence infusing ‘positional’ information into material substrates, (i.e. purposely arranging parts), all the time, in a ‘top-down’ manner, in order to create new functional ‘forms’.
And if anything ever gave us overwhelming evidence of the “Purposeful Arrangement of Parts”, life certainly is it.
Although the following was written by Michael Denton in the 1980s, his passage is still very much relevant today in 2021 and indeed, the evidence since the 1980s has only gotten much, much, stronger for his claims since he first wrote this passage.
“To witness such an act at a magnification of one thousand million times would be an awe-inspiring spectacle.”
Indeed!
Verse:
Swamidass was outmatched. He seems to think he is some sort of authority on the subject when he is far from it. Joshua couldn’t refute ID’s claims if his life depended on it.
Has Dr. Josh ever won a debate with an ID proponent? Definitely not with James Tour or Douglas Axe.
Joshua “wins” via banning ID proponents or via bald declaration that he won.
One of the biggest problems with Josh was when he wanted to deny funding and effectively shut down ID/creation science in universities. The Biologos group always buddying up to Christians but denying some pretty necessary tenets of the scripture. Just like the atheists like Eugenie that says evolution isn’t an enemy to faith, while signing the humanist manifesto
Bornagain 77,
Every now and then, I feel the need to express my gratitude for your presence on this forum. Your contributions are so relevant, so timely, and so well supported, that I, as an ID supporter, always feel empowered after reading them. I am especially impressed by the depth and range of your knowledge base, which allows you to select just the right excerpts from just the right specialists and subspecialists to solidify your points and expose the errors so common among ID’s critics.
Like some of the great champions in the sports arena, you score a lot of points, but you also help prepare everyone on the UD team to perform at a higher level. You have influence because, due to your preparation skills, you know the difference between true research and deceptive propaganda and can explain that difference to your audience. I hope that you will continue to give of yourself so generously because, without you, UD would not be what it is.
Amen to Stephen’s comment. Couldn’t have said it better
I just finished listening.
I have found Joshua to always be very “squishy.” I affirm his desire to reconcile two sides, but I’m not even sure what his convictions are.
The important thing to note is how quickly Josh writes off Neo Darwinism as the end all be all that mainstream science still seemingly holds and what children and students are being taught.
It’s as though we went from “Neo-Darwinism is fact” to “of course other mechanisms are necessary.”
I don’t like the idea of this transition in thought being effectively swept under the rug.
I also have mixed feelings about Gunter (due to religious conviction and interpretation of scripture). I love that he is insistent on Darwinism and any other mechanism not being a viable solution for body plan, specific complexity, etc. development but also do wonder like Josh, how do you still hold to UCA especially in light of the fossil record?
This conversation got derailed often and didn’t get very far, IMO. Josh just seems to swim in a sea of uncertainty (and doesn’t mind at all living in the tension) granting so much of ID’s plausibility but being so hesitant to just call a spade a spade. I guess I find myself frustrated in the dialogue from Josh.
If DNA does not specify the basic form of an organism then what does?
If DNA has no bearing on the form of an organism then how do you explain the deformities caused by thalidomide?
If DNA has no bearing on the form of organisms then how do you explain the deformities caused in laboratory animals by gene knock-out experiments?
If DNA has no bearing on form the how do you explain the various human disorders that are currently attributed to genetic causes?
For a simple explanation of how ID and natural selection can work together to produce the fossil record we actually see, while maintaining a version of common descent, have a look at:
https://thopid.blogspot.com/2020/03/a-model-for-intelligent-designevolution.html
If only 1% of the mutations at each generation were intelligently induced or selected for a future purpose, it would, in principle be enough to evolve new genes, functions, features and hence species over time, if done carefully. But, of course, that would still be ID all the way!
What I found most perplexing about the discussion was this: Swamidass was adamant that we shouldn’t expect any of the mechanisms to be a “total” view of evolution, and, in fact, didn’t even seem to think that they needed empirical support to be proposed. So why, then, is ID the *one* area where scientists are not allowed to suggest contributed to evolution? This seems odd to me.
How could DNA organise billions of cells to sing together into a complex organism? There is not enough information in DNA for this task. DNA is not the command point is just an executor of orders coming from elsewhere.
One theory is that there is a code in the cell wall that is mainly responsible. I believe Meyers discusses it in one of his books.
It’s one of the mysteries of life.
When I have time, I will search for it.
DNA just codes for RNAs. mRNA just codes for polypeptide sequences. DNA just codes for the raw materials. It does not have a say in how proteins fold nor how they are assembled. That means that all DNA determines is if the organism will develop normally or will it be deformed.
DNA controls and influences all aspects of development. But, just like an assembly line, it does not determine the product.
seversky should read “On the Problem of Biological Form”
It’s all about world-views. ID represents a world view that is unacceptable to the elites.
If one is interested in body plan formation, there is a section Meyer’s book, “Darwin’s Doubt” that discusses it. Look for “sugar code” in the chapter on epigenetics.
There is surprisingly little information on it. So it may all be speculative now. Body plans represent the real Achilles heal of naturalized evolution.
How body plans are formed is not the same as what determines the body plan.
What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following : Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)
If ID is right, and it is, immaterial information determines biological form.
I doubt it could be something crumbled and fragmented inside cells . It ‘s probably something unitary , like a command centre , who forms a network of trillions and trillions of connections.
More often than not, ET has the ability to pack more scientific punch in one sentence than a whole laboratory full of PhDs writing research papers.
“If ID is right, and it is, immaterial information determines biological form.”
– ET
Here are a few (long winded) posts I wrote yesterday establishing that scientific fact that ET put in one succinct sentence
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-behe-on-the-purposeful-arrangement-of-parts/#comment-732995
I touched upon the fact that the sequential information in DNA is now found to be a subset of quantum ‘positional’ information yesterday.,, For instance, (among other things), I referenced this.
As well, I touched upon this yesterday,
I would like to add a few notes to this notion of ‘positional information.”
This ‘positional information’ that is somehow coming into the developing embryo, ‘from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method, is also now found to be “optimal,”
As the following article states, “It’s now known that some form of positional information makes genes variously switch on and off throughout the embryo, giving cells distinct identities based on their location.,,, where information is concerned, cells might often find solutions to life’s challenges that are not just good but optimal,”
“Optimal” is not just some word that they are carelessly tossing around. When they describe a biological system as being ‘optimal’, they mean exactly what they are saying. As the following article states, “the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants.”
So, just where is this vast amount, (enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000), of ‘optimal’ positional information coming from in a developing embryo?
Well, I have my own strong suspicion as to exactly where this vast amount of ‘positional’ information is coming from in the developing embryo, but I am sure that Darwinian atheists will not like my answer one bit.
Thank you. I just try to remember who the reading audience is and keep it simple 😎
That plus the more someone adds the moar “they” pick on the minutiae and the point gets lost.
Send it to Steve Meyer. He may be interested.
But read what he wrote first. From his book
I did some 20 minutes internet search on what could possibly be the “decision state” of the cell, where the DNA is chosen. I found there was some cell state in which a cell closes off from the environment. I guess that would be the decision state, because I figured that for making decisions there should not be any interactions, so that the DNA could be in a quantum state of possibilities.
This cell state is related to cancer. I figure cancer is mostly cells going their own way, in disregard of the rest of the body. So maybe in cancer the cell is actively choosing it’s DNA, trying to survive in the body environment, and it’s not actually accidental DNA damage.
It would be interesting what some actual intelligent design researcher would come up with, if they studied what the most likely cell state would be, for when the DNA is chosen.
From fecundation till is formed the central nervous system of embryo of course sugar code is an explanation but after that point is necessary a command point that manage, analyze , verify all information that come from inside body and from outside body. Besides the task of building a body and for that reason making a permanent comparison of body blueprints(what complete body will be) with actual state of body being built.
Of course that command centre I was talking about is the Central Nervous System(CNS) that is the most complex thing in Universe.
Germaine to the discussion on body plan information, there’s a 4 part series on the topic at ID the future. Wells mentions the sugar code and electric code
https://idthefuture.com/1465/
“On this classic ID the Future, Casey Luskin talks with Jonathan Wells about his article, “Membrane Patterns Carry Ontogenetic Information That Is Specified Independently of DNA.” In this first of a series of interviews, Dr. Wells gives an overview of his article, explaining why DNA information in an embryo can only do its job in the context of spatial information that is specified independently of it.”
There was also Jonathan McLatchie’s interview with Wells from a while back, “Design beyond DNA”
https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE
Thank you for the link.
A couple things. The second interview is up.
https://idthefuture.com/1468/
This is based on a paper from 2014 so is not new information. It would be interesting to know what is currently being done on this. It seems enormously important and nothing to do with ID per se. So there should be many interested.
The rubes @ Peaceful Science are actually trying to declare victory for Swamidass. Seriously. The anti-ID mob are just a bunch of desperate, anti-science whiners.