Human evolution: The spin machine in top gear

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 19, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

For a fascinating misreading of what the recently announced Messel Pit fossil really shows, go here:

Scientists have found a 47-million-year-old human ancestor. Discovered in Messel Pit, Germany, the fossil, described as Darwinius masillae, is 20 times older than most fossils that explain human evolution.

That fossil doesn’t “explain” human evolution; it complicates the picture.

The theory that was gaining ground was that humans were descended from tarsier-like creatures, but this fossil, touted as a primate ancestor, is a lemur-like creature.

Often, I hear from people attempting to patch the cracks in the unguided Darwinian evolution theory, as follows: “We have more information than ever!”

Yes, but what if it is – as in this case – the evidence is contradictory?

Evidence for Theory A subtracts from evidence for Theory B. So if A is right, B must be subtracted from the total. If B is right, A must be subtracted from the total.

Surely, that is pretty obvious. But watching the spin machine in high gear is a fascinating exercise anyway.

No wonder fewer and fewer believe Darwinism.

Comments

Arthur Hunt, This was on one of your links. "Thus, studies that pertain to the origins of new protein-coding genes are going to factor largely in the scientific aspect of the ID debate, especially since ID proponents insist that new protein-coding genes cannot arise “by chance." Yes and no. Yes in the sense that the origin of protein coding genes will be a factor in the debate. But no in the sense that ID insist that new protein-coding genes cannot arise by chance. ID has no absolutes and believes that much of what we see in life arose by natural processes. But not all. So one, two or even several genes arising by natural means would not undermine ID though it would make it less likely for a lot of people. The premise is that it is unlikely that genes or proteins arose naturally; not that it is impossible. If this sounds like a cop out, it isn't. I believe it is reasonable. By giving you one or two or even a couple dozen examples I am not giving away the ranch but recognizing that the process set up can do this but in limited ways. So I have a question and I probably do not know how to express it correctly. There are search procedures, really not searches since nature is not teleological unless it is programed to be such and since a search presupposes an active process that is looking for something. Thus, there are really no searches but something that looks like one. Processes that introduce modifications to a working protein will produce many siblings, cousins and distant relations that are also working proteins, some not as good as others but some that may be better. That is easy to understand. But is a random set of amino acids a working protein? What percentage of these could be? So maybe you might want to comment on that and the chances that a random process maybe in some unused part of the genome first forms a DNA sequence that would lead to a working protein and then also form the necessary other elements in the genome so that it eventually gets transcribed and translated. What has to happen. Because ID believes this is rare. So one of the cases you will have to make is that this is not rare. If this takes too long or if you do not have enough time, I understand. Also I will be traveling for the next 10 days so will have limited time to see what has been posted etc. But I am sure others might be interested since it is rarely someone comes here who wants to talk science and has as much knowledge as you do.jerry_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

tjpeeler,
For instance, I’d really be interested to know how natural selection accounts for the thousands of species that live on a coral reef. Some fish have bright colors and that is explained by “n.s.” Some fish have drab colors and that is explained by “n.s.” Some fish have fins (n.s.) and some don’t (n.s.). Some shells have hard shells and some don’t. Some corals are hard and some are soft. “Natural selection” accounts for all of this? Well, how, exactly? Considering that there is no “purpose” or “foresight” or “design.” Doesn’t it seem odd then that every creature is somehow fitted for its environment? I find it curious.
I’d suggest first looking into the ecology of coral reef communities. I suggest RH Karlson’s Dynamics of Coral Communities as a starting point. It discusses what structures the food webs on coral reefs, and also the levels of competition in these environments. Then I recommend reading Chapter 6 (“Divergence and Spoecies Interactions”) of Dolph Schluter’s The Ecology of Adaptive Radiation, to get a background on how ecological opportunity and competitive pressures fuel species diversity. Without an understanding of the forces that build and shape these complex and diverse communities, it is easy to dismiss evolutionary explanations for them. It has been my experience that a firm grounding in basic ecology is essential to understanding evolution.Dave Wisker_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT}

---UP "You win." ---serendipidy: "Agreed." Not agreed. Hiding, obfuscating, misrepresting others' arguments, ignoring context in favor of trivialities, and failing to address substance are all violations of civil discourse and are just as deserving of moderation as rudeness. Indeed, they are usually the cause of rudeness.StephenB_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

I'd like to thank Dave for posting my comment, to apologize to the discussants for the typos, and to apologize to the moderator for doing things this way. It's not that I did not trust that the comment would be posted (eventually), but that I worry that the comment might be missed or ignored if it was far removed from jerry's comment. I don't know how moderated comments get inserted into the discussion, and figured this was a faster way to get "in line".Arthur Hunt_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped writes:
StephenB pointed you to post #290 when you complained. I pointed you to 297, 299, 301, and 306.
None of which refute my claim that a double standard has been applied.
You win.
Agreed.serendipity_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

Art Hunt asked that I post this invitation to all interested in jerry's transcript question (moderation takes too long) jerry asked: "From what I understand a large percentage of these sequences are transcribed. In other words they are theoretically available for protein formation. Maybe someone here who is more familiar with the translation process could comment on whether a random RNA polymer could be made into a protein or if there is some other factor that distinguishes some RNA polymers as suitable for protein formation. This is a technical question and I rather not dig at the moment to find the answer if someone knows it." This is one of the themes I explore on my blog. The moderation wait here doesn't exactly promote timely discussion, so I would invite you (and anyone else here who is interested) to read some of my essays and ask questions. There's lots of stuff that is relevant to this debate, and it's fascinating for many, many reasons. Here's an introductory essay that starts to get at the question of the non-coding RNAs that many here are captivated by many here: http://aghunt.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/junk-to-the-second-power/ Here's an essay that discusses the evolutionary transition from ncRNA to protein-coding gene: http://aghunt.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/one-persons-junk-is-anothers-treasure/ And here's an essay that discusses an example of such a transition: http://aghunt.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/de-novo-origination-of-a-gene-encoding-a-functional-protein/ I apologize for the link-fest. I promise that these essays are very pertinent to jerry's question and that they raise interesting issues for ID proponents. (Not surprisingly, I am also of the opinion that this subject is the coolest stuff in the world...) Read, ask, and above all else enjoy!Dave Wisker_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

Serendipity, StephenB pointed you to post #290 when you complained. I pointed you to 297, 299, 301, and 306. You win.Upright BiPed_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped writes:
What you have done is taken a position that someone has been denied their ability to respond on this thread.
He's in moderation, Upright.serendipity_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Jerry, Also, mature mRNA contains specifc sequences for binding ribosomes (the 5' cap, for example), plus any translatable transcript must also begin with the amino acid methionine (the amino acid associated with the 'start codon).Dave Wisker_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Hi jerry, From what I understand a large percentage of these sequences are transcribed. In other words they are theoretically available for protein formation. Maybe someone here who is more familiar with the translation process could comment on whether a random RNA polymer could be made into a protein or if there is some other factor that distinguishes some RNA polymers as suitable for protein formation. This is a technical question and I rather not dig at the moment to find the answer if someone knows I don't think we know for sure. However, there are some emerging ideas. Kevin Struhl discussed them back in 2007, but he seems to think the vast majority of transcription in eukaryotic genomes results in what he calls "transcriptional noise": Struhl K (2007). Transcriptional noise and the fidelity of initiation by RNA polymerase II. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 14: 103-105 From the abstract:
Eukaryotes transcribe much of their genomes, but little is known about the fidelity of transcriptional initiation by RNA polymerase II in vivo. I suggest that ~90% of Pol II initiation events in yeast represent transcriptional noise, and that the specificity of initiation is comparable to that of DNA-binding proteins and other biological processes. This emphasizes the need to develop criteria that distinguish transcriptional noise from transcription with a biological function.
Dave Wisker_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Hi jerry, have read the Brosius article in the Vrba and Eldredge book which seems to be the cutting edge in possible explanations. What is so "cutting edge" about exaptations? And how do they conflict in any way with what I described? Exaptations are merely changes that have deferred selective value. They still involve genetic change within a population and therefore fall comfortably within microevolutionary processes. Haldane and Kimura were talking about them back in the late 50's and early 60's.Dave Wisker_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

"Where those sequences come from, chance, necessity, history, design, etc. are the subject of the discussion." From what I understand a large percentage of these sequences are transcribed. In other words they are theoretically available for protein formation. Maybe someone here who is more familiar with the translation process could comment on whether a random RNA polymer could be made into a protein or if there is some other factor that distinguishes some RNA polymers as suitable for protein formation. This is a technical question and I rather not dig at the moment to find the answer if someone knows it.jerry_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Naskashima, I just read your question. It has merit. I like it! Please allow me to return later in the day to post a response (responsibilities are calling).Upright BiPed_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Serendipity, “I haven’t expressed an opinion…” Try giving a reasonable interpretation of events a whirl. What you have done is taken a position that someone has been denied their ability to respond on this thread. You’ve even gone so far as to visit other threads on UD to promote the idea that someone has been denied their voice. The facts seem to hardly matter at all. You’ve chosen to ignore a couple of minor issues: a) The person in question posted 45 comments totaling 7917 words without constraint. b) There is a practical inequity brought on by those who refuse to address the issue. What is becoming clear is that you would like to do as Diffaxial did. Where he tried to take the conversation into the weeds to avoid his defeat, you’d like to take it in the weeds after his defeat - n'importe quoi pour la fraternité, right? Well, if you are truly determined to play nurse for Diffaxial, then by all means jump in. Can you provide the revitalizing argument that he was unable to provide? In not, then be honest about it and leave it alone.Upright BiPed_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

Dave Wisker, you said: "Once divergence has begun and can be maintained through reproductive isolation, the process of growing differentiation is inevitable, empirically as well as theoretically. So it is up to those who insist on macroevolutionary change requiring something other than microevolutionary processes to identify the barrier preventing ever-diverging lineages from accumulating enough differences to justify placing each in different higher taxa." ID does not deny that separation occurs and that speciation happens but that the level of differences in this type of speciation process are trivial in the scheme of things. Even with 540 million years since the pre Cambrian. As Provine said a lot of changes happened, it is the mechanism that is under debate. No one has shown any mechanism that can produce these complex functional changes. There is speculation but that is all we have seen. I have read the Brosius article in the Vrba and Eldredge book which seems to be the cutting edge in possible explanations. But even with review there is a noticeable lack of examples. We realize that it is impossible to recreate the DNA of the past fossil record so surrogate measures have to be used. So one has to go to the fossil record for hypothetical transitions that would record this complexity building and it is missing. Or go to the current suite of species in the world to look for these transitions and there are no examples. Though the methodology is not entirely equivalent, cosmology has examined star formation and other processes by sampling stars at different distances and at different stages of development to have hard examples of a complete transition from dust to star to collapse or super nova to new star or to black hole etc. Actually life is much more complex than star transitions but no similar array of examples exist in life today. What does exist are trivial in the microbes to man scenario such as the Drosophila adaptations. Very interesting in some ways but not in the real evolution debate. As Provine said, all there is, is faith, He calls it small faith, we believe it is a large amount of faith. Now we would call it a day and each side could continue on its merry way investigating the various possibilities if one side would admit in public and in the textbooks and in the academic literature that it was faith. But no we get only a hard wall that their way is absolutely correct and the other way is complete nonsense. This attitude has nothing to do with science and reason and logic but 100% to do with ideology. One side is reasonable and considers all the possibilities and one side is intransigent. Guess which side is which. Hint: ID will consider all the possibilities.jerry_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

Mr BiPed, I don't see why you have included "and not the product of chance" in your definition of physically inert. For example, with the four nucleotides of DNA, it is exactly the arbitrary possible sequences that make DNA inert. Where those sequences come from, chance, necessity, history, design, etc. are the subject of the discussion.Nakashima_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

I'll address myself to a few points that have been raised since being placed in moderation. Biped has repeated his claim that I ignored a request for an answer to a particular question for "10,200 words." Let us examine that interval. The first instance of the statement of concern occurred in Joseph's post @ 64, reproduced here in its entirety:
“If natural selection is true, we should observe _______. If we fail to observe _______, then natural selection is at risk of disconfirmation.” “If random variation is true, we should observe _______. If we fail to observe _______, then random variation is at risk of disconfirmation.” diffaxial had tried to answer those pertaining to the theory of evolution but the answers were so far off base they were pathetic.
You'll notice two things about the forgoing: 1) There is no question, and 2) the real thrust of the quote is to insult by asserting without justification that my previous response was "pathetic." My response was to call Joe out by requesting that he reproduce the exchange so that we could make a judgment regarding whether my responses were truly "pathetic (this in part because I really had no idea what he was referring to.) As any reader can ascertain, Joseph evaded supporting his "pathetic" characterization in any way for nine days despite repeated requests. He saw fit to cover his nine-day evasion with repetitions of "If natural selection is true, we should observe _______. If we fail to observe _______, then natural selection is at risk of disconfirmation," but in light of his earlier characterization of my earlier response as "pathetic" and his repeated failure to justify same I saw no reason to dignify those repetitions with a response, not the least because his repetitions were accompanied by statements such as, "Answer the questions again and most likely your earlier tripe will be repeated. I do not have time to search for your already refuted nonsense." As any reader can ascertain, the groundwork for a double standard in moderation was already being laid as these remarks prompted no comment from the moderator. Joseph at last responded @ 181 to my request:
OK I found Diffaxial’s nonsense. You can read it here: - convergent phylogenetic hierarchies (eg. paleontological and genetic)?- chronological fossil series?- geographic distributions of features?- transitional forms - eg. Tiktallik, the cynodont therapsids, hominid evolution, legged fossil whales, etc.)?- inactivated human genes for the production of vitamin C?- flightless birds species necessarily unique to the islands upon which they are found.?- incipient/recent speciation in allopatrically separated populations Not one is a prediction of evolution and not one is based on natural selection nor random variation.
However my actual response at that location was as follows:
Joseph:
If the theory of evolution is true then we should observe ________.
- convergent phylogenetic hierarchies (eg. paleontological and genetic)?- chronological fossil series?- geographic distributions of features?- transitional forms - eg. Tiktaalik, the cynodont therapsids, hominid evolution, legged fossil whales, etc.)?- inactivated human genes for the production of vitamin C?- flightless birds species necessarily unique to the islands upon which they are found.?- incipient/recent speciation in allopatrically separated populations etc. etc. etc. etc.... Whether or not you agree that the above predictions have been confirmed (another question entirely - and we already know you don’t, so don’t bother going there), what would strengthen this FAQ are predictions of analogous specificity that arise uniquely from ID, such that failure to observe puts ID at risk of disconfirmation.
You'll notice that, in the flow of the discussion that was ongoing on that thread, the question posed to me on that thread BY JOSEPH was not "if natural selection is true" but rather the very different, "if the theory of evolution is true" (see Joseph @ 75 on that thread). My response was to the latter. His complaint on this thread that my predictions didn't specifically address natural selection is a bit misplaced, given that the question HE posed didn't specifically request same. In short, Joseph's claim I had earlier provided an answer to his question is patently false; he hadn't posed his current question ("If natural selection is true"), but rather another question ("If evolution is true"). Further, in reproducing my response he chose to omit reproduction of the additional two lines that would make it clear that he was mistaken in asserting that I had previously answered his question, whether in pathetic fashion or otherwise. I'll let others reach their own conclusions regarding whether that omission was deliberate. With respect to moderation at UD, here we have further instances of your double standard, as "pathetic," "tripe" and "nonsense" are clearly no less strong than "cow pie" and "your hard blowing." (Not incidentally, allowing such comments to pass without moderation intervention encourages the conclusion that similar remarks are appropriate.) I stand by my discussion with Biped. I immediately addressed his initial attempt at a response, which was obviously defective and subsequently withdrawn for that reason. I also stand my my criticisms to date of the poor quality and scientific uselessness of his amended "predictions." However, issues of that kind cannot be discussed from behind the wall of moderation.Diffaxial_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

Spiders, termites and beavers- I have stated that those three are agencies. To illustrate that point if you take a walk in the woods and came across a stream with a beaver dam what would you know? That beavers had at one time, been there. The dam is evidence of their past presence. If you come across a spider's web, you know that at least at some time in the past a spidr had been there. The web is evidence of the spider's past activity. If you come across a termite mound that is evidence that at some time in the past termite activity took place. We know, via experience, that in each case that nature, operating freely, could not have produced those structures. That is what ID seeks- to differentiate between nature, operating freely and agency activity. Ya see experience has also demonstrated that it matters a great deal to any investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose by nature, operating freely or agency involvement.Joseph_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

Pertaining to human evolution- Is there any data which demonstrates any amount of mutational accumulation can take a knuckle-walker and from that get an upright biped? Do we know what gene, gene or DNA sequences are involved in such a transformation? If we don't then how can we scientifically test the premise?Joseph_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

Upright Biped writes:
You’re speaking as if in vacuum, with nothing around to gauge what has come before you made your entrance.
And you're speaking as if the entire thread weren't available to anyone who chooses to read it.
Apparently you’re bias is to think that someone wasn’t given a chance to address the entailment he asked for...
I haven't expressed an opinion on the matter. What I have said is that you, he and all commenters should be able to present your arguments as you see fit.
Quite frankly, I am wondering why you assume you have enough data to voice an opinion at all.
Why? Were you and Diffaxial having a secret off-thread dialogue that doesn't appear here?serendipity_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT}

peeler (another excellent post)Upright BiPed_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
12:16 AM
12
12
16
AM
PDT}

JayM #275 "You are mistaken. As I noted above, and as several people at RichardDawkins.net attempted to explain to you, natural selection is a result of imperfect replication leading to differential reproductive success. It’s not that complex a concept. Natural selection is readily observed; it is not a myth.” I beg to differ and this is the core of the disagreement. If natural selection is an unguided process, and it is, by definition. That’s what it means, no design, no teleology, no intelligence, no planning, nothing that is associated with mind. Then all that REALLY means is physics. Right? If there is no mind in the causal chain of events, then there isn’t. But if there isn’t, then we only have physics to explain everything. Dawkins himself understands this. He says early on in "The Blind Watchmaker" (page 5 of my paperback copy) that: “All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way.” Now, what this very special way that they are deployed is curious, and I notice that there aren’t any physicists that have explained this “very special way.” I also notice that Dawkins’ very language indicates a designer. After all, inanimate things don’t “deploy” anything, as far as I know. In any case, “natural selection” = physics. In "The God Delusion" (page 181 hardbound) he says: “The physical stance always works in principle, because everything ultimately obeys the laws of physics.” This is another recognition of what his underlying philosophical position (naturalism or something like it) says. In "Philosophic Inquiry" (page 161 hardbound) Beck says: “Mechanism is, in biological theory, the view that living organisms can be exhaustively explained in terms of the hypotheses and laws of chemistry and physics. Mechanism as a biological theory is a special case of the more general metaphysical theory of materialism...” And this on page 388 of the same book: “Materialism is the naturalistic metaphysics that regards nature as consisting of matter in motion. Whatever is apparently not matter in motion is to be regarded as "mere appearances" of what is matter in motion. All explanation, therefore, in philosophy as well as in science, is to be phrased in terms of the laws now known or yet to be discovered concerning the relationships among the different kinds of matter and the laws of their motion with respect to each other.” Francis Crick says the same thing in "Of Molecules and Men" (page 10) when he says: “The ultimate aim of the modern movement in biology is in fact to explain all biology in terms of physics and chemistry.” So my point is this. If everything is to be explained in terms of physics, and this means “natural selection” in biology, then why don’t physicists know about “natural selection”? Go ahead and ask a physicist if “natural selection” is a physical force. I have. He will say “no” and maybe laugh at you for thinking such a thing. But if “natural selection” isn’t a force in nature, as described by physics, which is all we have to describe anything, remember, then what is it, EXACTLY, and what is the source of its immense causal powers? I suggest that it is a word game. Let me make an even bolder claim and say that “natural selection” is a myth. Referring to “natural selection” to explain life is like referring to volcano gods to explain lava flows. If only physics has causal power in nature, and “natural selection” isn’t part of physics, well then, “natural selection” has no causal power in nature. For this not to be true, you have to assert that other things in nature (mind, for example) have causal power, but the individual wedded to naturalism or something like it (materialism or physicalism) will never do that. Or, you have to assert that “natural selection” is part of physics. Good luck with that. Therefore, whatever “we” observe in nature is not “natural selection” in action. I will say again, this is the biggest fraud ever foisted upon the scientific community and a gullible public. “They” say science is self-correcting, unlike “faith.” Hmmm. This doesn’t seem to be the case with Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution. Now that “we” know about information, DNA, and so on it flies in the face of “natural selection.” Eventually, science discarded phlogiston and the ether. But those concepts didn’t have the theological implications that design has. That’s why “science” is so resistant to it. If you still disagree, then defeat this argument: Premise: Only the laws of physics have causal power in nature. (Fundamental naturalist claim) Premise: But “natural selection” is not part of physics. (Just ask a physicist. He will only recognize four forces: gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear strong and weak.) Conclusion: Therefore, natural selection has no causal power in nature. (So what is it, again, really?) "Not only that, but the idea is based on, as far as I can tell, three faulty assumptions." (me) "And those are?" (JayM) They are: 1. The metaphysical assumption. There is no purpose or design in nature. I can quote Dawkins and many others to confirm this. I’m not making it up. But, natural selection is based on the “struggle for survival.” No? Yes. But wait a second, I thought we JUST SAID that there was no purpose in the universe. Let me go ahead and cite Dawkins just to make my point. In "River Out of Eden," page 132, he says: “Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” Now I don’t know about you but in the universe I live in you can’t have things both ways. It’s called the law of non-contradiction. There cannot be purpose in the universe AND not be purpose in the universe. So which is it? Dawkins tries to have it both ways by referring to “apparent purpose” and “apparent design” but how would he know of “apparent purpose and design” if these things did not exist in the first place? He would not. Therefore, since there IS NO PURPOSE IN NATURE, according to their own fundamental worldview, THERE IS NO PURPOSE IN NATURE. But obviously there is, so how to get around that inconvenient fact? The invention of “natural selection” fits this bill nicely. They SAY it’s “blind physical forces” but then they turn around and give it the characteristics of design and purpose. The “struggle for survival” and all that. I hate to break it to you but I can’t think of anything more fundamental than the struggle to survive. And struggling is always purposeful, is it not? Certainly it is in this case. That’s indicated by the words “for survival.” 2. The two empirical assumptions are from Malthus. He came upon the idea that (1) populations would grow geometrically and (2) food supplies would grow arithmetically. Darwin read Malthus and it was from these two false assumptions that he came up with the “struggle for survival” since there will inevitably be more organisms than there is food to support them. Well, this is just nonsense as far as I can tell. Perhaps you can direct me to studies that confirm these two premises. 3. Therefore, for these two reasons, I say that “natural selection” is a fraud, a subterfuge, a myth, a fakery, well, you get the picture. When “we” observe (not me, I could care less) organisms adapting to their environments in different ways we are NOT seeing “natural selection” in action, we are witnessing the interplay of an exquisitely designed organism and its environment. Note that many organisms can exist successfully in many different environments and many “niches” within each environment. This reflects design, not evolution. "Modern evolutionary theory is well supported by empirical evidence. It will take more than your simple assertions to refute that." It is hardly well supported by empirical evidence and that’s because the same data can be accounted for in a different way. Design can accommodate all of the same data and actually make sense of it instead of butcher it. Here is a short list of empirical problems for evolutionary theory. 1. No way to account for information. 2. The fossil record has no transitional forms. (Where ARE those birds turning into reptiles? Or was it the other way around?) Have you actually ever read Dawkins describe how it “might have” happened? It’s hysterically funny. Another time I’ll post his description. 3. According to modern cell theory, life only comes from life. So what’s the explanation for first life? (Hint: if you are a Darwinist, it’s “duh, I dunno.”) And yes, I know that evolution doesn’t claim to account for first life but let’s get serious for a minute. How good an explanation can it be that starts with: “well somehow things got started … add a lot of “natural selection” and some genetic errors plus a few billion years and HERE WE ARE.” That’s “science”? 4. As far as I can tell, there is no real explanation of cause and effect in evolutionary theory aside from the volcano god of “natural selection.” For instance, I’d really be interested to know how natural selection accounts for the thousands of species that live on a coral reef. Some fish have bright colors and that is explained by “n.s.” Some fish have drab colors and that is explained by “n.s.” Some fish have fins (n.s.) and some don’t (n.s.). Some shells have hard shells and some don’t. Some corals are hard and some are soft. “Natural selection” accounts for all of this? Well, how, exactly? Considering that there is no “purpose” or “foresight” or “design.” Doesn’t it seem odd then that every creature is somehow fitted for its environment? I find it curious. 5. Dawkins and others are fond of saying that the first life was simple and grew more complex over time. Oh really? Do a Google search on smallest bacteria and you will find, as I did once, it could be different now, that the smallest one has about 200 GENES. Who knows how many base pairs of DNA that is. The point being, there is no such thing as “simple” life. Of course, Behe is excoriated for pointing out the blindingly obvious concept of irreducible complexity. As if everyone doesn’t “get” that. Cells are irreducibly complex. Remove the mitochondria, for example, and see how long the cell lasts. Long enough to evolve them? I doubt it. "A rigorous, falsifiable theory of ID that makes testable predictions combined with empirical evidence derived from those tests is all that is required. Certainly there will be those who oppose ID on philosophical grounds, but real scientific evidence cannot be ignored." (JayM) It’s not the evidence that’s being ignored. It’s the explanation for that evidence that’s so lacking with evolutionary theory. "More precisely, populations adapt, not individual organisms. That adaptation takes place via differential reproductive success based on random variations in replication. That process is what is meant by “natural selection.”" (JayM) What have you said? Differential reproduction. “Parents” and children aren’t clones. OK. I’ll buy that. And the success part? Only living things reproduce? Really. I would never have thought that is so, so profound. And you have managed to attribute the existence of a genetic language and the existence of trillions and trillions of bytes of biological information to a process that denies the existence of the only thing in the universe that is known to be able to manipulate symbols in accordance with rules to communicate information. A mind. "What we see is the interplay of exquisitely designed organisms that can not only survive where they are but also have the capability, built in, to adapt to changing circumstances." Me "I agree. Unfortunately, neither of us, nor any ID researchers, have any empirical evidence to support the claim of design. ID is a nascent theory. We shouldn’t overstate our case." JayM “We” have been understating our case for far too long. Evolution is NONSENSE. It's beneath contempt. If you have read anything by Dawkins, you know how irrational the guy is. Dennett is the same way. Coyne, Mayr. They all are. They’re full of double talk and nonsense. Someone could make a career just out of picking up the intellectual trash spread around by Dawkins. "I’m very interested to see your argument. I would note that one common problem with the “argument from information” is that ID proponents too often fail to clearly define what they mean by “information,” switching from Shannon information to Kolmogorov complexity to imprecise English language definitions willy nilly. The mathematical case needs to be made very clearly and consistently." JayM This may be true but conceptually it doesn’t need much more than common sense. For crying out loud, can anyone honestly say that physics can account for information? Please. Information requires language (symbols, vocabulary, and rules). The manipulation of symbols, according to rules, is something only a mind can do. What part of physics, exactly, would you suggest that can even begin to address the representation of one thing for another? General relativity? Quantum physics? The Standard Model? Thermodynamics? It’s a non-starter. There is no way. I will make the argument soon. In the meantime, Hubert Yockey has an excellent book, "Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life," that confirms much of what I say about information, although he approaches it differently and he certainly disagrees with my conclusions. His bad. ? "The other problem typically seen with this argument is failure to take into account known evolutionary mechanisms. The most common consequence of this is that the “information” measured is ultimately computed as 2 raised to the number of bits assumed to be required to describe the artifact in question. This is, in fact, the probability of the artifact coming into existence de novo. That is not what MET claims happens." I’m not sure I fully grasp what you are saying here. But again, the game is already up. The “known evolutionary mechanisms” are nonsense. Look, in order for something to be a good explanation it must explain WHAT NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED. Does it not? Of course it does. And in the case of life, what needs to be explained is INFORMATION, and the language that communicates that information. Yet the only explanatory resource “they” have is physics. But physics can’t even begin to explain information. Why are “we” (not you and I) still having this conversation with “them”? Here are a few comments from Yockey. Page 2. The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides the living organisms from nonliving matter. There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences. Page 3. Their work (Watson and Crick) completed the modern view that the message in the genetic information system is segregated, linear, and digital. Page 3. Information theory and coding theory and their tools of measuring the information in the sequences of the genome and the proteome are essential to understanding the crucial questions of the nature and the origin of life. Page 5. The belief of mechanist-reductionists that the chemical processes in living matter do not differ in principle from those in dead matter is incorrect. There is no trace of messages determining the results of chemical reactions in inanimate matter. If genetical processes were just complicated biochemistry, the laws of mass action and thermodynamics would govern the placement of amino acids in the protein sequences. Page 6. Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies. Page 7. The genetic information system is the software of life and, like the symbols in a computer, it is purely symbolic and independent of its environment. Of course, the genetic message, when expressed as a sequence of symbols, is nonmaterial but must be recorded in matter or energy. Well, you get the point. There is MUCH MORE. How he missed out on the correct conclusion mystifies me.tgpeeler_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
12:04 AM
12
12
04
AM
PDT}

Hello Nakashima, Yes, please take the description at face value. The nucleic sequencing in DNA is physically inert if I explain that "by physically inert I mean that it does not exist by means of physico-dynamic forces and is not the product of chance". You see how easy that is? You are certainly welcome to refer to it in whatever term you'd like.Upright BiPed_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT}

Serendipity, You’re speaking as if in vacuum, with nothing around to gauge what has come before you made your entrance. Apparently you're bias is to think that someone wasn’t given a chance to address the entailment he asked for (despite the 10,200 words that were passed after it was given to him). Quite frankly, I am wondering why you assume you have enough data to voice an opinion at all.Upright BiPed_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT}

Mr BiPed, Yes, thank you! I read the first paper when Mr Cordova mentioned it, and I read the second paper when you brought it to me attention. That is why I was able to trace Abel's use of "dynamically inert" to HH Pattee. I assume you have done the same research, and changed the phrase to "physically inert" for a good reason. However, if you now say it has the same meaning, I just want to confirm that, in the face of previous discussions.Nakashima_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT}

Hi jerry, One of the issues under debate is that a lot of modern evolutionary biology asserts that there is no difference between micro and macro evolution. This assumes that evolution proceeds on a gradual basis and that macro evolution is just enough micro evolution played out over time. I don’t buy the assertion that microevolution assumes gradual change. It certainly isn’t inherent in the definition, which is change in the genetic composition of population. The definition certainly does entail gradual change, as in an adaptation that is the result of a series of mutations of small effect over time, but it does not preclude small genetic changes resulting in major morphological or developmental changes over a comparatively short period of time. Nor does the definition rule out complex adaptations—they require genetic change within populations just like the less complex ones do. Speciation doesn’t stop the microevolutionary process either—it continues along ever more diverging lineages. All of this is observable. There is no speculation here. And it is not wild speculation that the longer two or more lineages are reproductively isolated from each other, the more different they will become. This is observed in experiments that have watched the process as long as practically possible. Once divergence has begun and can be maintained through reproductive isolation, the process of growing differentiation is inevitable, empirically as well as theoretically. So it is up to those who insist on macroevolutionary change requiring something other than microevolutionary processes to identify the barrier preventing ever-diverging lineages from accumulating enough differences to justify placing each in different higher taxa. Walter ReMine and Michael Behe are usually mentioned as having identified such barriers, but having read both, I have concluded neither has done any such thing.Dave Wisker_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

"Fair enough. You read the entire post, and in the face of everything to the contrary in plain sight, you came to the independent conclusion that the issue of fairness doesn’t revolve around Diffaxial not addressing the entailment he demanded, it was that UD cut him off after he ignored it for several thousand words." Upright I wouldnt pay much attention to Serendipity's criticism. You addressed Diffs request and rather respond he played dumb and started playing the defintional word game. You refused to play his game.... took Diff at face value and dumbed every thing down since that was the game Diff was playing. Serendipity is now trying to make the victim the villain. Predictable really. Vividvividbleau_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

Upright, For a debate to be full and fair, participants must be free to present their arguments as they see fit. If you find it difficult to debate someone who isn't following your own idiosyncratic "fairness" script, then you're doing it wrong. Debate is a competitive affair; you need to be able to present your best argument with no help from your opponent. Also, be careful what you wish for. If someone's personal notion of "fighting fair" were truly and objectively the criterion, then a lot of ID proponents would be consigned more or less permanently to the penalty box. Far better to let the readers judge who is arguing fairly and who isn't. We don't need the moderators to do this for us.serendipity_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

Hi jerry, You said:
"You will have to pardon my ignorance on this subject but I know very little about plants. So maybe as a help you could explain in layman’s language or point to something that is fairly easy to understand about the differences between woody growth habits and the growth patterns in dandelions if that is different from herbaceous and what controls them in a plant organisms. Also could you do the same for perennial and annual plant mechanisms since it seems that the mutations in the experiment you described affected both. Meanwhile, I will try to review some biology on this but may not have enough time in the next 10 days since I will be traveling a lot."
You ask for a mouthful (and more, and without paying tuition, to boot!). I apologize for trying to be brief, but maybe one or two analogies can help. The contrast between woodiness and herbaceous growth is roughly analogous (in strictly physical terms) to that between cartilaginous and bony skeletons. (The analogy isn't perfect - cartilaginous skeletons are more substantive than the dandelion's support structure. But I think this helps to understand the contrast.) Perenniality vs annual growth habits is trickier to convey. But these properties are as different as the differences in behavior one sees in, say, insects and animals (to fumble with an example off the top of my head). You didn't get to my question - how does one go about determining whether a characteristic is novel and complex? What are the units of measurement? Ten days, eh? I'll look for your answers.Arthur Hunt_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

Seredipity, Fair enough. You read the entire post, and in the face of everything to the contrary in plain sight, you came to the independent conclusion that the issue of fairness doesn't revolve around Diffaxial not addressing the entailment he demanded, it was that UD cut him off after he ignored it for several thousand words. Apparently for you, the "debate" mentioned in Barry's policy only needs to be full, not fair.Upright BiPed_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply