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

A Footnote: Here (from Thaxton's cite) is what the future Sir Francis Crick wrote in a letter to his son, Michael, March 19, 1953. That is, just as soon as he and Watson had worked out what the DNA molecule was like:
"Now we believe that the DNA is a code. That is, the order of bases (the letters) makes one gene different from another gene (just as one page of print is different from another)"
As can be easily seen, the functionality of DNA is to store information used to construct and increasingly evidently to regulate the construction of the molecular nanomachines of cell-based life. To do so, the key thing is the SEQUENCE of bases on the chain, which gives rise to specific SHAPES that for instance in Ribosomes, are such that 3-letter mRNA codons translated from the DNA fit (key-lock sense) the appropriate tRNA (with the attached amino acid for a growing protein molecule). Thus, we see a digital information system in action, based on a 4-state element, expressed in string code sequences. Of course, there are start and stop codons, and an intervening string data structure; so that the protein expressing algorithm is: start protein coding and expression, add amino acid1, 2, . . . n, STOP protein coding. Thereafter the aa string is folded (and may have additional atoms or active groups added to activate it) and transported to appropriate use sites in the cell. Protein functionality, of course is based on overall folded shape [which may be that of an agglomeration], bonds, active sites, strength of intra-chain interaction etc. that functionality is NOT a physical chemical consequence of the chemistry of an RNA string, but the result of PROCESSING (read, express, in sequence) THE INFORMATION ENCODED IN THE CODONS. So, UB is right to cite Abel et al on the fact that --as Crick pointed out right from the beginning of the DNA era -- we are dealing with ORGANISED step by step, digitally coded information processing; not simple chains of physical-chemical interaction. What counts is the shape of the successive RNA 3-letter codons, derived in turn from the carefully stored codons in DNA. The matching tRNA, a separate molecule with an appropriate aa attached, locks to the codon in the Ribosome, and adds its AA to the emerging protein (similar to how the correctly shaped key unlocks the padlock . . . ). the specific sequence of the protein chain, and especially its side-groups [the chemistry of chaining has but little influence on the side group activity, again], then leads to a particular pattern of intra-molecular interactions and a highly complex folding to minimum-energy configuration. It is molecules in those configurations that then work together, often based on similar key-lock fitting, to effect teh complex processes of cell based life. but to do that the right clusters in the right relative configurations have to be in the right places at the right times, and that brings in the cell's internal transportation network. The overall system if of such a magnitude of functionally specific informational complexity that the only reasonable comparison is the more complex works of engineering that we know of. [Tornado in a junkyard forms a functional 747, complete with onboard computers, anyone . . . ?] Save, for this further complexity -- BTW, a further elaboration remarked on by no less than William Paley (who contemplated the implications of a self-replicating watch) -- the cell is a self-replicating automaton. Von Neunann worked out the architecture for that back in the 40's [it requires storing the blueprint and having an internal factory capable of replicating itself from instructions in the blueprint . . . a proto ID movement predicitve success . . . ], but we are not yet capable of this degree of sophuistication in our enginerring. much less, to do so using molecular nanotechnologies . . . So, looks like those who wish to explain the origin of life on the evolutionary materialist paradigm have a challenge to explain the SPONTANEOUS origin of a complex [way beyond 1,000 functional bits] digital information processing system out of molecular noise int hat still warm pond beloved of Sir Charles Robert Darwin. (And spark in gas exercises under cosmologically implausible lab conditions do not come NEAR to answering the need to get the info system together, even if all the parts were present and encapsulated. You do not get a functioning watch together by shaking the parts in a bag, not even once if the whole universe were reduced to bags of watch parts shaken for the thermodynamically plausible lifespan of the universe.) Then, when it comes to body plan level innovations required to get to the architectures of major groups of life forms, the information challenge moves form 600,000 bits for first life to 10's - 100's of megabits, dozens of times over. Nor will random variation plus natural selection causing cumulative selection answer to the helm on that: BEFORE you can climb up, step by easy step, from the beach of first functionality to the upper reaches of Mt Improbable, you have to first get tot he shores of Isle improbable, at random on a vast sea of non-functional DNA etc configurations. (not to mention, accounting for epigenetic information issues too.) And that, sirs, is why this claimed unobserved remote past origin of life and origin of body plan level biodiversity spontaneously through undirected chance plus necessity is just-so story materialist spin, not science. Something that Mr Richard Lewontin of the US NAS has confessed to back in 1997 in his NY review of Books article on Mr Sagan's last book:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
In short, this is an issue of worldviews imposeed by powerful interests acting under false colours of science -- not science as it should be: an unfettered but responsible search for the truth about our world based on empirical evidence -- in the end. Hence, the intensity of the kulturkampf we seem to have on our hands. (Sadly, this weekend, a madman has taken the war metaphor to the point of murder; playing right into the hands of those whose Marxist training -- thesis, antithesis, synthesis through ruthless power struggle [and,as Clausewitz famously advised, war is but the extension of politics to the battlefield . . . ] -- makes them ever so loathe to "waste a crisis.") GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial, You cannot challenge the observation that the method used to communicate the information contained in DNA is a representative symbol system which happens to be physically inert. You cannot challenge the observation that the information itself is physically inert as well. And you cannot challenge that this physically inert symbol system communicating physically inert information is what leads to function in Life. That is the entailment you asked for, and that is what I gave you.Upright BiPed_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT}

Serendipity, I have nothing to do with moderation on this board. I have been moderated here myself. I seek no protection from Diffaxial, and have absolutely nothing to fear from a thing he can say to me. Diffaxial can't address the issue - bottom line. What he does is BS his way around the issue and pretends he addressed something. If there was any reason to moderate him, that would be it. Either way, he will loose this argument, as he already has.Upright BiPed_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial,
Those exact phrases. You got me there. But two problems with the above: 1) Abel doesn’t use the phrase “physically inert meaning.” 2) I didn’t post or refer to the Shannon article. You’re thinking of that other guy again. 3) R0b did link to a seminal Shannon paper above. It doesn’t contain the phrase either. Plop.
Are you a glutton for punishment? David Abel used the term “physically inert” in describing the sequencing of nucleotides within DNA. He used this term in a peer-reviewed journal and apparently it was found that reasonable men and women who are concerned with such things, as the sequencing of nucleotides within DNA, are able to communicate these ideas to each another by using terms such as physically inert. Now, perhaps this going to come as a shock to you, but, the sequencing of nucleotides in DNA has meaning. This concept of “meaning” is also very much covered in Abel’s work. I posted just one of the many relevant passages regarding “meaning” from his work earlier in this thread (and by the way, the concept also appears in Shannon’s paper under the nefarious and confusing term “meaning” on page one). Now, lets put the idea together for the last time…1) Something that has meaning (like the sequencing of nucleotides in DNA for instance) is observed to be 2) Physically Inert...and can be represented by the combination of those two terms (1+2). The combination of those two terms would result in a phrase (throughout the greater English-speaking world) such as “physically inert meaning”. What could such a phrase possibly mean, you ask again? Again, I offer the context - something that is physically inert in its existence, and lo and behold, it has meaning as well. That meaning (as it turns out) is what gives living things their ability to function as living things. I simply cannot repeat this any more, so I hope you got it this time. This is the concept that I offered to you as an observationally verifiable entailment of the theory of Design – as per your specific request. Subsequently, I have conceded all descriptive words to you (you can pick whatever you like) and have only held that the concepts must stay in accordance with the observable evidence. So now I’ll ask again: Do we indeed observe such a physically inert symbol system communicating physically inert information in the function of Life? - - - - - - - Your previous answer was “cow pies” …or more accurately, your previous answer was “No one is going to observe anything corresponding to those definitional cow pies. They’re beyond useless on any side of the argument.” Of course, this was just your affable way of deflection from having to address the question at hand. We all understand that. But it is also undeniably apparent that scientific journals do not share your concern in communicating these concepts with these words. So don’t repeat your claim. Give yourself a pep talk, and just answer the question instead.Upright BiPed_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT}

Clive, By what standard do Diffaxial's comments merit the imposition of moderation if the following insults by Upright Biped (all of which come from a single comment) do not?
So if you are, perhaps, a slow learner or have difficulty with modest conceptualizations... given your pompous certainty... I apologize for not being more empathetic to any special needs you might have... I simply assumed that you were just another materialist bigot... I am more than willing to slow down for you.
serendipity_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial, ------"No one is going to observe anything corresponding to those definitional cow pies." ------"I’m still waiting, your hard blowing notwithstanding." This is why I put you in moderation.Clive Hayden_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT}

Hi jerry, I'll echo Dave Wisker's comments without more elaboration. And ask a question to help clarify things. You said "the concept ID is interested in is the origin of complex novel capabilities". Also, in commenting about my essay (linked to above), you seemed to dismiss the suggestion that things like perenniality and woody growth habits (say, trees vs dandelions, to provide a contrast we can all relate to) as being "complex novel capabilities". However, by any biological criteria, these properties of plants are every bit as novel and complicated as the things you listed that pertain to animals. So my question is - what metric are you using to determine if particular features are "complex novel capabilities"?Arthur Hunt_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped @ 259:
Those cowpies are already part of the scientific record. You been given the references to those exact phrases (”physically inert”, Abel) and then even posted the other yourself (”meaning”, Shannon)
Those exact phrases. You got me there. But two problems with the above: 1) Abel doesn't use the phrase "physically inert meaning." 2) I didn't post or refer to the Shannon article. You're thinking of that other guy again. 3) R0b did link to a seminal Shannon paper above. It doesn't contain the phrase either. Plop.Diffaxial_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

re #255 "Allowed? I’ve been BEGGING for a coherent entailment and a doable test thereof for weeks. I’m still waiting, your hard blowing notwithstanding." And I've been patiently waiting for you to address the necessity for explaining information and the complete inability of any naturalistic program, including evolutionary theory, to do that. Come on, either tell me why explaining information isn't important or, if it is, then go ahead and explain it, conceptually, at least, in terms of evolutionary theory. I'm sure I'm not the only one waiting to hear this...tgpeeler_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

Hi jerry,
ID would have no problem with a different definition of macro evolution but the concept ID is interested in is the origin of complex novel capabilities and somehow something has got to express that. Macro evolution has been the usual term to encompass this.
The ’usual’ term? I don’t think so. Steve Stanley, in his book Macroevolution: Pattern and Process defined it as simply evolution above the species level. So did Ernst Mayer. Theodosius Dobzhansky (one of the architects of the Modern Synthesis), in his book Genetics and the Origin of Species used the same definition. He went on to say:
The words “microevolution” and “macroevolution” are relative terms, and have only descriptive meaning; they imply no differences in the underlying causal agencies.
Another architect of the Modern Synthesis, G. Ledyard Stebbins, took that thinking even further in his book Processes of Organic Evolution. He doesn’t mention either term even once. As we have discussed earlier, change above the species level does not depend solely on complex adaptation. So, macroevolution in its usual sense (that is, the one used by most biologists) doesn’t either. I suggest that the definition of macroevolution as the origin of complex adaptation is misleading and unnecessary, and therefore should be dropped.Dave Wisker_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

I’ve taken Art out of the blacklisted pool and put him under moderation. He can now comment, subject to being moderated. If I see that he doesn’t need moderation, I’ll take him off that list too. Most excellent, Clive. I'll let him know.Dave Wisker_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial, Those cowpies are already part of the scientific record. You been given the references to those exact phrases ("physically inert", Abel) and then even posted the other yourself ("meaning", Shannon). Then, you were told via Popper that the argument over the words was “specious and insignificant” in light of the evidence. The meaning of the words was provided to you. You had the context and had the choice to either challenge or ignore. And as your parting shot all you have to say is "cow pies". You have made an admission by default that we do indeed observe physically inert meaning in the functioning of Life. That is the entailment of Design.Upright BiPed_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

Dave Wisker, I've taken Art out of the blacklisted pool and put him under moderation. He can now comment, subject to being moderated. If I see that he doesn't need moderation, I'll take him off that list too.Clive Hayden_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

If you have an observation of chance and necessity leading to physically-inert language and information, then say it. Or Do we indeed observe physically inert meaning (as its been defined here) in the function of Life?
No one is going to observe anything corresponding to those definitional cow pies. They're beyond useless on any side of the argument.Diffaxial_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

You have one on the hook right now… be my guest. Deal with the evidence for a change of pace. If you have an observation of chance and necessity leading to physically-inert language and information, then say it. Or Do we indeed observe physically inert meaning (as its been defined here) in the function of Life?Upright BiPed_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

You lost when you allowed me to fill in the blanks of your sentence. ID always wins when ID leads with the evidence. You should have gone off in the weeds along time ago.
Allowed? I've been BEGGING for a coherent entailment and a doable test thereof for weeks. I'm still waiting, your hard blowing notwithstanding.Diffaxial_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial,
In a scientific context it is important to define terms descriptive of potential observations operationally (per Bridgeman etc.). The examplars you provide of “physically inert meaning” encompass so many examples (human languages, animal signaling, aspects of genetic transcription) that it needs to be sharpened considerably before it can be of any real observational use.
Unless part of their use is the real observation that they all arrive by means of an agent. (Since someone might be interested in what causes them)
What you are essentially reproducing in this clause is something very close to the EF.
Is there anything about this sentence that makes any sense? Firstly, you asked for an entailment of design which could be verified by observation. I gave you one. Secondly, the EF is a mathematical tool for detecting the inference to design; it’s only been around a few years. What I gave you is a verifiable description of what has been giving function to Life since way back when. See how that works? Diffaxial…? You lost when you allowed me to fill in the blanks of your sentence. ID always wins when ID leads with the evidence. You should have gone off in the weeds along time ago. But ya didn’t.Upright BiPed_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

Biped @ 246: Thank you for your patience with the handicapped.
All of your posts so far have centered on objecting to my descriptive terms of various observations and phenomena. These descriptive terms are generally not seen as being in any way hard to grasp.
In a scientific context it is important to define terms descriptive of potential observations operationally (per Bridgeman etc.). The examplars you provide of "physically inert meaning" encompass so many examples (human languages, animal signaling, aspects of genetic transcription) that it needs to be sharpened considerably before it can be of any real observational use.
If the design theory is true, then we should observe “something that exist, but its existence is not explained by its own physical properties and is not the product of chance - and - this something represents something else without being physically connected to it" in the function of life."
OK, that's better. Let me think about it... "...Something not explained by its own physical properties" (e.g. "law" or "necessity," ), "...and is not the product of chance..." Sound familiar? What you are essentially reproducing in this clause is something very close to the EF. So your prediction in essence reduces to, "If design is true then we should observe something that 'passes' the EF..." (perilously close to "If design is true then we should observe design"), to which you've added, "...AND this something represents something else without being physically connected to it in the function of Life." So your prediction inherits all the problems of the EF (not the least of which is that it doesn't work) PLUS the additional burden of operationalizing the detection of "something that represents something else without being connected to it." As a bonus, your test also indicates that a something that passes the EF without displaying symbolic abstraction ("physically inert meaning") has failed to satisfy your test for design.Diffaxial_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Dave Wisker, you said: "That would render ID’s definition of macroevolution far too restrictive to be of any utility, in my opinion." ID would have no problem with a different definition of macro evolution but the concept ID is interested in is the origin of complex novel capabilities and somehow something has got to express that. Macro evolution has been the usual term to encompass this. Here is a discussion of the problems ID is interested in that I have posted about a half dozen times. The latest was few months ago https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ud-commenters-win-one-for-the-gipper/#comment-299358 Also I think anyone disputing ID should also read this first. I believe you already read it. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/november-apologetics-conference-we-need-more-than-good-arguments/#comment-296129 Certainly Darwin knew the real issue involved the origin of complex functional elements and tried to address the eye as a result by pointing to a light sensitive spot.jerry_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

Hi jerry, You said recently:
"But right now I have not seen any indication from anyone in evolutionary biology that species differences or genera differences or family differences are due to the origin of complex novel capabilities"
Taken along with your earlier comment about my essay, this statement gets to be confusing. I take it that you don't see woody growth habits (as seen in redwoods) as a complex capability different from what we see in, say dandelions. I also take it that perennial vs annual growth habits are also not different "compex capabilities". OTOH, wings, 4-chambered hearts, warm bloodedness and the like are. From where I sit, there really isn't much of a difference as far as "novel complex capabilities" between what you see in animals and what I discuss in plants. Perhaps you can clarify your assertion by laying out some explicit metrics that you use to make these distinctions.Arthur Hunt_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

Hi jerry,
The process I have seen explained for most species development is the separation of a sub population with a smaller gene pool and subsequent development so that there is no longer possibility of inner breeding. Often it has been indicated that this sub population has a dramatically different gene pool than the parent population.
. A smaller gene pool may have a different distribution of allelic frequencies than the parent population. That doesn’t mean its capacity for the generation of new variation is dramatically less: after all, its still shares the same number of genes with its parent. If it remains very small and completely isolated from every other population then yes, its stock of variation will dwindle considerably. But both conditions remaining static for long periods of time are more the exception than the rule. Many subpopulations develop complete isolation over long periods of time, with hybrid zones of contact with other subpopulations bringing in fresh alleles (but at a dwindling rate) for some time before breaking off contact eventually, which can allow them to grow quite large before final, complete isolation. .
Can squirrels and mice inner breed? (artificially I guess if possible at all) If they can, then the taxonomy is not correct
Not according to the Biological Species Concept. The key factor is that the populations be reproductively isolated, and this isolation can come in several forms. For example, as far as I am aware, squirrels and mice never attempt to mate with each other. For all intents and purposes, they are isolated reproductively by behavior. That they may still be interfertile through, say, artificial means is moot. The fact is they are reproductively isolated enough that they never exchange genes in nature, and have been isolated enough to have accumulated enough differences that one could never mistake one for the other. This does leave some ambiguity and uncertainty when it comes to pinpointing when a population stops being a variety or incipient species, and becomes a full-fledged species. But that isn’t particularly new or controversial: even Darwin noted that the difference between a variety and species is often arbitrary.
But right now I have not seen any indication from anyone in evolutionary biology that species differences or genera differences or family differences are due to the origin of complex novel capabilities
That may well be because there is little reason or evidence to think the differences are due to the origin of complex novel capabilities, at least in general. That would render ID’s definition of macroevolution far too restrictive to be of any utility, in my opinion.Dave Wisker_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

jerry,
Often it has been indicated that this sub population has a dramatically different gene pool than the parent population. Since it came from the gene pool of the parent population it must be smaller.
I don't understand this. why does "different" = "smaller"? some alleles that were more variable in the ancestral population may have become fixed or less variable in the new population (which I assume is what you mean by a narrowing of the gene pool), but others may have become more variable due to e.g. relaxed selection. so there is no need for the gene pool to become smaller with speciation.Khan_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

Dave Wisker, Art Hunt's attitude in one of the articles that David Kellogg pointed to was very hostile to ID and both essentially expressed strawman arguments. If he were to comment here and I hope he does, then he should have a different attitude both here and in other places about what is being discussed and also recognize the lack of relevance of his arguments in those two articles to the debate. He may have many other arguments that are very relevant but in the two articles linked to on macro evolution both are not relevant. They are interesting articles. And after a quick perusal of what else is on his site, he would be a valuable source for anyone wanting to learn about biology and evolution. One of the reasons we dislike those who oppose ID is the complete lack of respect by most of them for the people here who support ID. There is a long litany of pejoratives used to describe those who support ID and it is not the basis for any meaningful discussion and it often expressed right off the bat in initial comments here by new posters. If one wants to come here and have a fruitful discussion, then one has to have a different attitude. For example, your comments here have been respectful and we appreciate it but if you should then go to another forum and belittle and mock those here then what reason should we have to respect you or even want to have a conversation with you. And if people have such little respect for us, why do they continue to come here and often try to dominate the discussions. Especially when they know so little. I find it an amusing side issue in this whole debate. So I hope Art Hunt is willing to come here with that in mind so we can all learn but if it is just to put us down then it will not be of much use or if he goes back and belittles us someplace else then it is a waste of time.jerry_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial, All of your posts so far have centered on objecting to my descriptive terms of various observations and phenomena. These descriptive terms are generally not seen as being in any way hard to grasp. For instance, I have a teenage daughter who understands that a red plastic ball is a physically inert object in terms of its existence - in that there is nothing in the hydrocarbons of the plastic that causes it to become a red ball. It requires the act of an agent to accomplish that. She is also able to grasp that other things, such as language and meaning, are physically inert as well. So if you are, perhaps, a slow learner or have difficulty with modest conceptualizations, then I simply did not pick up on it. More than likely I may have overlooked it given your pompous certainty that terms such as “physically inert” and “meaning” are so overwhelmingly difficult and vague as to hinder your understanding of the underlying concepts being discussed. I apologize for not being more empathetic to any special needs you might have. To be quite honest, up until your last post I simply assumed that you were just another materialist bigot illuminating what Karl Popper referred to as a Conventionalist. This is one who is so dogmatically attached to the current paradigm that they constantly argue over mere words, in place of allowing themselves to accept or recognize the meaning. It seams the issue is often cloaked in a contrived endeavor for clarity, which is both obvious and unending. Popper referred to “such arguments” over words as “specious and insignificant”. Having said all that, I want you to know that I am more than willing to slow down for you. In fact, I am more than happy to relinquish all descriptive terms directly to you. In true Popperian fashion “they are not important”. Frankly I only use the term “physically inert” because it’s shorter than saying “something that exist, but its existence is not explained by its own physical properties and is not the product of chance”. However, if you feel there is a better term that means the exact same thing, then by all means suggest it and I’ll use your term. I also see that you are struggling with the term “meaning”. If you’ll look back I suggested the illustration of saying the word “apple”. When you think “apple” and then say the word “apple” it’s not a physical apple that is coming out of your mouth. Instead it’s a word that means apple. In other words, the word “meaning” suggests something that represents something else, but is not physically connected to it. Again, if you have a word that suggests the same thing, then we can use that term as well. Now if we go back and put these two descriptions (physically inert and meaning) together we end up with something like this: something that exist, but its existence is not explained by its own physical properties and is not the product of chance -and- this something represents something else without being physically connected to it”. What ever terms you’d like to use for that is fine with me (again, the words are not as important as the concept). So let’s now return to the sentence that you wished to have the blanks filled in. (…and by the way, the minor correction made to my first post was not made because the first post was wrong, misleading, or untrue – it was made because I temporarily forgot that mentioning OOL, would give those dogmatic conventionalist I told you about an opportunity to throw anarchy to reason, as Popper suggested. I therefore replaced the term “origin of life” with the term “function of life”. I had truly hoped the change would not have thrown you off too badly, so I apologize for confusing you yet again). You asked: “If my theory is true, then we should observe _____. If we fail to observe ______, then my theory is at risk of disconfirmation.” To which I responded: “If the theory of design is true, then we should observe physically inert meaning in the function of Life. If we fail to observe it, then the theory is at risk of disconfirmation.” Now, with the ousting of my confusing terms and the replacement of them with what is intended by them, we can now see what the concept entails. If the design theory is true, then we should observe “something that exist, but its existence is not explained by its own physical properties and is not the product of chance -and- this something represents something else without being physically connected to it” in the function of Life. However, if we do not observe “something that exist, but its existence is not explained by its own physical properties and is not the product of chance -and- this something represents something else without being physically connected to it” in the function of Life, then the theory of design is at risk of disconfirmation. Yes…I know it’s certainly a mouthful, but I simply wanted to remove the offensive and confusing words I used so that you may more easily grasp the underlying concept. (Oh but wait, I also see that you are particularly sensitive to the phrase “meaningful equality” when I suggest that if x then y requires a meaningful equality to be placed between the theory x and the observation y. I can only suggest for you the dictionary in this instance: meaningful = having a meaning or purpose, equality = a quality or state of being equal. I am suggesting that the observation should have qualities that are meaningfully and purposefully in a state of being equal to what is prescribed by the theory. Again, I apologize for leading you into a condition of abject bewilderment). So now, back to actual issue… We do, in fact, observe through scientific methods that living things are given the ability to function by "something that exist, but its existence is not explained by its own physical properties and is not the product of chance -and- this something represents something else without being physically connected to it” This "something" to which I am referring is the information contained in DNA, and the symbol system by which that information is communicated. Both the information and the symbol system are “something that exist, but its existence is not explained by its own physical properties and is not the product of chance”. This is the point to where you have been challenged. Your sentence had its blanks filled in, and it is far beyond time for you to answer the concept and not the words. I commented earlier that:
“You can’t logically (or reasonably) challenge [this] reality as far as it being physically inert, you can’t challenge it as far as being meaning, and you can’t challenge it as far as leading to function.”
I also said:
“If you had a defense against the argument that chance and necessity cannot account for information and language, then you would have made it a thousand times over. If you had an argument that a volitional act is not inferred by the evidence, you would have made that as well (and would have done so with the observation that chance and necessity can indeed lead to physically-inert language and information).
So you go think about the words that you want to replace mine with. They can be anything you wish, it’s not important (only the rational truth of the concept is important). We can call physically inert “ballyhoo”, and we can call meaning “flapdoodle”. It’s all good by me. I’ll be right here when your ready to address the issue.Upright BiPed_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

Dave Wisker, you said: "Why would the ancestral gene pool have to have been larger" The process I have seen explained for most species development is the separation of a sub population with a smaller gene pool and subsequent development so that there is no longer possibility of inner breeding. Often it has been indicated that this sub population has a dramatically different gene pool than the parent population. Since it came from the gene pool of the parent population it must be smaller. Once lost it is unlikely a characteristic will return except through gene transfer and since this is now a new species this is much less likely to happen. Also natural selection will tend to refine gene pools due to environmental conditions and as environment conditions change again will cull it more. Genetic drift will also tend to reduce variability. This is one of the explanations I have seen for extinction, the lack of variability in the gene pool due to contraction over time. Now there is always the possibility of mutations adding to a particular gene pool but in general the process explained to me is one mainly of culling not expanding. This is an issue for empirical investigation. Can squirrels and mice inner breed? (artificially I guess if possible at all) If they can, then the taxonomy is not correct. If they cannot which is what seems likely, then what characteristic of each is different and preventing such a breeding. How did these characteristics arise? Were they part of other families in the order and if so then they most likely preceded either family. All of this is an empirical issue. As I have said many times before on this site, the conclusions on what actually happened will come down to genome comparisons and this will probably happen in the next 15-20 years for some lineages. But right now I have not seen any indication from anyone in evolutionary biology that species differences or genera differences or family differences are due to the origin of complex novel capabilities. Now I am sure there may be some and when they are researched it will have to be determined how they arose genetically. ID says the whole discussion comes down to changes in information because that is what guides the changes we see morphologically and what are the probabilities that such changes in the information controlling the physical changes could arise by naturalistic processes. ID says it is very limited and this was the argument of the Edge of Evolution and at the center of the debate.jerry_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

Clive, Art used to comment here, and may have been blacklisted under Dave Scot's reign, although why (other than agreeing with Abbie "ERV" Smith in a heated thread on Behe's new book) was not made clear. At any rate, his attempts at commenting now get lost in the aether. I've known Art personally for some time, and I think his expertise in molecular biology and biochemistry, and the fact he works with plants, would make his input here informative and useful. Not that he's going to agree with most folks ;)Dave Wisker_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

Hi jerry,
If two separate families are only separated by micro evolutionary changes, then ID would not contest it or have problems with it no matter how high up each were on a classification ladder. I believe the order is rodents. Could both these families be just the results of micro evolutionary processes acting on some larger gene pool than either one and the consequences are due to separate environmental conditions.
Why would the ancestral gene pool have to have been "larger"? It seems to me far more likely-- given what we know about heredity-- that the genomes are roughly the same as the ancestral one, but have diversified independently since the split. I don't see how a "narrowing" is necessary to explain differences acquired since divergence. Some lineages can undergo losses of variation due to extreme specialization (think of highly specific plant-pollinator coevolution), but that is due more to competitive pressure, not simple divergence due to reproductive isolation. This sounds like that 'devolution' hypothesis you mentioned. Can you point me to a paper in which that hypothesis is outlined? Frankly, I've never seen it in the evolutionary literature.Dave Wisker_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

Thanks to the crew here for looking at my essay. If this message goes through, I will have more to say about jerry's remarks.Arthur Hunt_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

Dave Wisker, Art Hunt can comment here, if he hasn't been black-listed before.Clive Hayden_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
12:31 AM
12
12
31
AM
PDT}

re #233 "I just read through the thread and there seems to be a consensus that natural selection is the result of heritable traits, imperfect replication, and the consequent variations in reproductive success. Natural selection is not a force, in the physics sense, and this was explained to you in that thread. Frankly, your deliberate obtuseness there does the ID movement no favors. Those who would challenge the scientific orthodoxy must first understand it themselves. Failure to do so makes it very easy for ID opponents to ignore us even when we have valid points." Let's deal with the pedagogical issue first. I grant you that playing dumb may not have been the best gambit. Still, the confusion my "innocent" questions provoked was astonishing to me, particularly on that forum. Now to your prior point. The consensus of what "natural selection" is on that thread is pretty meaningless to me. I contend that n.s. is a myth, a word game at best. It merely describes being alive. Any organism that is "fit" is by definition, alive. And any organism that is alive is by definition, fit. This is a classic case of circular reasoning. Not only that, but the idea is based on, as far as I can tell, three faulty assumptions. One is rational and two are empirical. In any case, my contention is that the reigning scientific orthodoxy regarding life is about as "scientific" as a flat earth. This battle won't be won in this generation in academia. There are too many vested and intrenched interests who will literally have to die off before this stranglehold will be broken. The best that any of us, I assume you are one of "us," I don't know you, can hope for is to persuade uncommitted or genuinely inquisitive people. Ruling castes never go easily into the night. I think the next generation of thinkers will have a shot at setting things right and they will be standing on the shoulders of the ID giants of today who are making extreme sacrifices, the academic equivalent of Iwo Jima (I'm a retired infantry Marine and I'm not exaggerating, much, about the sacrifices, when I say that - to invest ones life in academic pursuits and then put it all on the line in the defense of truth is very admirable - I like to think I'd do it but who knows), but I'll never see the day. Do organisms adapt to their environments? Yes. But that is not "natural selection" at work. 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. The genetic language, I predict (duh), will turn out to be the most complex and intricate language in the universe. When we think of what goes on in a living organism, all of it driven by information encoded in DNA, we should immediately infer that there is something more at play than time, chance, and necessity. The crux of my argument (I'll present it in full blown form later) is that to explain life one must explain information. This claim, to my knowledge, is uncontroversial. Therefore, the true explanation for life will be able to account for information. But natural processes (physics - or "natural selection" plus genetic mutation - or ANY other naturalistic explanation, one that denies the place of mind) cannot possibly account for information because nothing in physics (or chemistry) can explain symbols and rules for the use of those symbols. Only mind can do that. Therefore, the game is OVER. All anyone has to do is "do the math." Either mind or "no mind." "No mind" cannot explain information, and therefore it cannot explain life. Therefore mind is the answer. It's really that simple. For anyone who takes reason seriously, that is. Obviously, "they" don't but outsiders looking in may. Anyway, thanks for your comments and I'll get back out to Dawkins' web site and be much more direct. Give them something to really shoot at. :-)tgpeeler_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply