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

Dave Wisker, "Here is what I don’t understand. In that link you gave me some time ago presenting the ID concept of macroevolution, you talked about microevolutionary processes being capable of producing changes up to the genus level at best." If you want to know what the basis for the discussions are, it is Michael Behe's Edge of Evolution. This book indicated the limitation of naturalistic processes in creating novelty. The focus of the book was on single celled organisms but there is no reason it could not be extended to animals which have considerably less reproductive events to generate novelty. "The reason I ask is, consider the rodent families Muridae (mice) and Sciuridae (squirrels). What differences between these two higher taxa require complex adaptations that could not have been achieved via microevolutionary processes?" 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. Or are there some critical characteristics of either family that can not be explained by such a process and is the result of possibly one of Allen MacNeill's engines of variation creating a unique capability in one of the gene pools that was not in the other or in any other family of this order. Just what are the critical differences between the two families and could the difference be explained by devolution rather than evolution. And by that I mean, are the only differences due to a narrowing of the gene pool plus maybe some minor mutations that have no system building capabilities. It is an hypothesis that what we see in nature is devolution or a limiting of the gene pools and not evolution and an expansion of the gene pools. Not an absolute conclusion but not something I have seen eliminated. It has been broached many times before and if the hypothesis were not true, then why hasn't evidence to contradict it been presented in textbooks, books on evolution or elsewhere? If such information was available it would immensely bolster the naturalistic evolution argument. Just show the differences are not due to trivial straight forward micro evolutionary processes but due to the building of complex novel capabilities over time. There should be a trail in fossil record and in the current suite of animals in the world today indicating the capability of naturalistic process to build these changes. Remember that ID is primarily concerned with information and says that naturalistic processes do not have the capability to produce substantial differences in the information content of a genome that will lead to novel complex capabilities. ID doesn't say that substantial changes to a genome don't take place, only that these major changes do not lead to new major capabilities. If the examples brought forward represent only minor changes of the genome then ID will have no problems even if the morphological differences are large. I personally think that such a system (micro evolution) represents good design and enables species to adapt when faced with new environments. But I also believe there is a limit to what these adaptions can be. I and I believe most others here are willing to be proven wrong. But so far no one has done it.jerry_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

jerry writes:
Think wings, echolocation, blood pressure system in giraffes, warm bloodiness, four chamber hearts, neurological systems, eyes, avian oxygen transport system, the many adaptations in whales to live in water etc. It is quite possible that some of these complex systems may be shown to follow simple evolutionary paths and if so then ID would not object
Insect wings: Averof M and SM Cohen (1997). Evolutionary origin of insect wings from ancestral gills. Nature 385: 627-630. From the abstract:
Two hypotheses have been proposed for the origin of insect wings. One holds that wings evolved by modification of limb branches that were already present in multibranched ancestral appendages and probably functioned as gills. The second proses that wings arose as novel outgrowths of the body wall, not directly related to any pre-existing limbs. If wings arose from dorsal structures of multibranched appendages, we expect that some of their distinctive features will have been built on genetic functions that were already present in the structural progenitors of insect wings, and in homologous structures of other arthropod limbs. We have isolated crustacean homologues of two genes that have wing –specific functions in insects, pdm (nubbin) and apterous. Their expression patterns support the hypothesis that insect wings evolved from gill-like appendages that were already present in the aquatic ancestors of both crustaceans and insects.
Multichambered hearts: The fact is, we know empirically that subtle modifications of embryonic genes can result in novel traits. Is it hard to imagine the evolution of the multichambered vertebrate heart from a simple one-chamber precursor? Researchers have shown that a simple regulatory change (well within the power of a simple random mutation) during development can result in "an unexpected phenotype: transformation of a single-compartment heart into a functional multicompartment organ." in the invertebrate tunicate Ciona intestinalis. See: Davidson B, WSJ Beh, L Christiaen, and M Levine (2006). FGF signaling delineates the cardiac progenitor field in the simple chordate, Ciona intestinalis. Genes and Development. 20: 27287-2738 Avian oxygen transport system: It appears to be a feature that birds may share with therapod dinosaurs: O'Connor PM and LPAM, Claessens (2005) Basic avian pulmonary design and flow-through ventilation in non-avian theropod dinosaurs. Nature 436:253-256. From the article:
Recent studies of non-avian theropod dinosaurs have documented several features once thought solely to characterize living birds, including the presence of feather-like integumentary specializations, rapid, avian-like growth rates, 28, and even bird-like behaviours captured in the fossil record. Either implicitly or explicitly, these studies have linked anatomical, physiological or behavioural inferences with an increased metabolic potential, suggesting that if not bird-like in metabolism, theropods were at least 'more similar' to birds than to reptiles. Our study indicates that basal neotheropods possessed the anatomical potential for flow-through ventilation of the pulmonary system, emphasizing the early evolution of respiratory adaptations that are consistent with elevated metabolic rates in predatory dinosaurs.
Dave Wisker_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

Shubin N & C Marshall (2000). Fossils, genes and the origin of novelty. Paleobiology 26(4): 324-340 From the abstract (my emphasis):
Discoveries from both paleontology and developmental genetics have shed new light on the origin of morphological novelties. The genes that play a major role in establishing the primary axes of the body and appendages, and that regulate the expression of the genes that are responsible for initiating the making of structures such as eyes, or hearts, are highly conserved between phyla. This implies that it is not new genes, per se, that underlie much of morphological innovation, but that it is changes in when and where these and other genes are expressed that constitute the underlying mechanistic basis of morphological innovation. Gene duplication is also a source of developmental innovation, but it is possible that it is not the increased number of genes (and their subsequent divergence) that is most important in the evolution of new morphologies; rather it may be the duplication of their regulatory regions that provides the raw material for morphological novelty. Bridging the gap between microevolution and macroevolution will involve understanding the mechanisms behind the production of morphological variation. It appears that relatively few genetic changes may be responsible for most of the observed phenotypic differences between species, at least in some instances.
This ties in with Allen MacNeil’s ideas on the engines of variation, I would think.Dave Wisker_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

Art Hunt has told me he would be glad to discuss his article on UD, if that were possible. Clive, could Art be given posting privileges? I've heard complaints that not enough evolutionary biologists post here. Art's pretty accomplished in his field.Dave Wisker_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

You’re out of moderation. I’m not sure why you were ever moderated, I think it happened before my time.
Thanks Clive.Dave Wisker_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

jerry, Here is what I don't understand. In that link you gave me some time ago presenting the ID concept of macroevolution, you talked about microevolutionary processes being capable of producing changes up to the genus level at best. I have to ask just what evidence brought you to derive this limit. The reason I ask is, consider the rodent families Muridae (mice) and Sciuridae (squirrels). What differences between these two higher taxa require complex adaptations that could not have been achieved via microevolutionary processes? Similarly, lets go even higher up the taxonomic chain to orders. Consider the orders Lagomorpha (rabbits, hares, and pikas), Macroscelidea (elephant shrews), and Rodentia (rodents). What differences between them require complex adaptations that could not have been achieved via microevolutionary processes?Dave Wisker_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, I am glad that Dave Wisker is not in moderation. He has been posting here for several months off and on and has been a great source of information. However, there seems to be a misunderstanding about macro evolution and we have had this discussion before. The term does not have any firm definition and the one we are using here at ID are the origin of new systems or as I call it the origin of complex novel capabilities. This usually implies the working of several new parts of an organism. We have had this discussion with khan before and that what some others are calling macro evolution is not what we are calling macro evolution. It is possible to get some very dramatic morphological changes with very little change in a genome. ID has no problem with that and as has been said many times accepts all the changes that various mechanisms of change can produce (Allen MacNeill’s 50+ engines of variation.) I believe that teosinte and maize or corn are the same species but look completely different so the cultivation of corn from teosinte would not be an example of macro evolution. Just as the breeding of a Labrador Retriever from a wolf would not be macro evolution. Similarly the change of one or two elements of a genome in a plant that produced a dramatic morphological change or even changed it from an annual to a perennial would not be what we would call macro evolution. It is obviously an interesting change and may be of immense practical value. One can certainly object but ID has no problem with such changes and these types of things are not under debate. To represent it as such is a misunderstanding. If one wants, then we can agree that there are different types of macro evolution and the one ID objects to as never or rarely being demonstrated is the introduction of new systems within the organism. I have to personally admit I have very little understanding of plants and most of what I have read is about animals. Think wings, echolocation, blood pressure system in giraffes, warm bloodiness, four chamber hearts, neurological systems, eyes, avian oxygen transport system, the many adaptations in whales to live in water etc. It is quite possible that some of these complex systems may be shown to follow simple evolutionary paths and if so then ID would not object.jerry_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler @228
Funny you should ask. I am doing that right now at Richard Dawkins web site. The ignorance there is appalling.
There is considerable ignorance on display in that thread, indeed.
I can’t get them to agree on what “natural selection” is or see that ultimately they must explain everything with the laws of physics since they eschew mind.
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. JJJayM_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox, ------"Jerry, Why doesn’t Bob O’Hara post here any more? It is simply because he can’t. Ask Clive, he will confirm it." Why would you be asking Jerry a question that I made about moderation?Clive Hayden_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

Dave Wisker, You're out of moderation. I'm not sure why you were ever moderated, I think it happened before my time.Clive Hayden_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler,
I am doing that right now at Richard Dawkins web site. The ignorance there is appalling. I can’t get them to agree on what “natural selection” is or see that ultimately they must explain everything with the laws of physics since they eschew mind.
LOL. I just checked in over there, and that thread is a real circus. It seems like they should be able to explain the concept in a few sentences, but most of them carry on paragraph after paragraph with no point.herb_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

Dave Wisker asked me to post the following response to jerry (Dave Wisker's in permanent moderation): Jerry writes [124]:
It is represented here on this site and in the academic and popular literature by the lack of any coherent demonstration that Darwinian macro evolution ever took place. Now macro evolution did take place and no one is denying that here but there is no evidence for it happening by Darwinian processes or any other known natural processes.
For those who still think macrovolutionary processes have not or cannot be observed or examined experimentally, I suggest reading this essay by molecular biologist Art Hunt on his blog The RNA Underworld: “Is macroevolution impossible to study (Part 2)?
The plant kingdom is many things – the basis of agriculture and civilization, a natural laboratory with a stupefying capability in organic synthesis, a source of untold numbers of pharmaceuticals, antimicrobials, herbals, and other chemical playthings, a fascinating range of biological form and function, and an eminently accessible subject for studies of evolution. Along the lines of the last two bullets, one of the more interesting aspects of plants is the range of growth habits that may be adopted. Among these are two sets of contrasting characteristics – annual or perennial, and herbaceous or woody. Differences in these characteristics are among the bases for classification of plant species. For this reason, but also because accompanying morphological differences can be quite considerable, evolutionary changes that involve transitioning between these states are macroevolutionary. Thus, it stands to reason that studying the means by these characteristics evolve amounts to experimental analysis of macroevolution, and understanding the underlying mechanisms constitutes an explanation of macroevolutionary processes.
The article goes on to describe work with the plant Arabidopsis thaliana in which mutations to two genes resulted in dramatic changes to the plant’s reproductive growth habits, changes that would, if found in two different populations would place them in different higher taxa. In other words, small, microevolutionary processes can be observed to produce macroevolutionary types of changes. The article can be found here.David Kellogg_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

"“Why do you never venture to other sites where evolutionary biologists might dispute your assertion “that there is no evidence for macro evolution”?”" Funny you should ask. I am doing that right now at Richard Dawkins web site. The ignorance there is appalling. I can't get them to agree on what "natural selection" is or see that ultimately they must explain everything with the laws of physics since they eschew mind. I meet the same sort of "resistance" everywhere. So now you are retreating into semantic games. All along we've known what information and language are but now that a devastating argument has been made all of a sudden we need to go back and rethink our definitions. This is what makes arguing with naturalists about anything so entertaining. They can't justify the first thing about anything so the bobbing and weaving is just something to behold. Trying to get you to stake out a truth claim and back it up or actually deal with an argument that's been made is virtually impossible. More to come after I take my wife to dinner. :-)tgpeeler_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

I will say this again. There are no good definitions of science, intelligence, life and species. If any one doubts this, then maybe they should provide a definition. Yet we discuss all of them here and with little misunderstanding. For intelligence we all sort of know what we mean by it but some people here just want to throw anything they can into the gears to stop a discussion so they will ask for a precise definition. And a friend of mine once dated a girl from Beaver College. But they changed the name of the school in recent years. They used to meet out by the dam.jerry_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

"Why doesn’t Bob O’Hara post here any more?" He used to post here for at least a couple years. I do not know the circumstances of his banishment. But when he was here, he was asked about macro evolution and essentially declined to answer. So I do not know what your point is. "Why do you never venture to other sites where evolutionary biologists might dispute your assertion “that there is no evidence for macro evolution”?" I do not have much time for this and when I have gone to other sites, I rarely saw a cordial conversation. And there have been evolutionary biologists who have come here so no one is prohibiting them from coming. They can come as long as they are cordial. As I often say, I miss great_ape who was a gentleman and as knowledgeable as anyone who ever came here. He was an evolutionary biologist. I suggest you find a biologists who can explain the evidence for macro evolution to you and then bring it here for discussion. If it is presented in a factual and cordially way then I am sure there will be a good discussion. Try it and see what happens.jerry_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

Joseph, just to clarify: is the agency of the spiders, termites, and beavers intelligent?David Kellogg_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

Nature, operating freely could not build a spider’s web.
So the designer does it?
The spider IS the designer of its webs. The beaver IS the designer (of their beaver dams). The termites are the designers of their termite mounds. In each case nature, operating freely could not have produced the structures in question. Therefor agency involvement was required. And in each case the agency has been identified.Joseph_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

To falsify ID all one has to do is demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can produce the object/ event in question. IOW ID is testable and falsifiable. What part of that don’t you guys understand?Joseph_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

Beaver college? Name's been changed :-) tribune7_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
Science cannot address teleology.
Yet scientists do just that. What do you think archaeologists look for? Signs of teleology. Forensics- dtermine a criminal act from nature. Also you say something about nested hierarchies. Yet you have proven that you don't even understand the concept. Also refuting ID would strengthen the atelic position. That is just plain obvious.
It can only work with what is observable, detectable, testable.
ID is testable. It is observable and detectable.
Demonstrate that an unknown, unseen, undetectable agent tweaks living organisms would be an interesting thing to demonstrate.
That is not what ID postulates. IOW once again you have proven you don't understand ID. So why don't you take the time to educate yourself and then come back and ask specific questions?
You are at once saying agency activity (whatever that is) designs beaver dams and at the same time ID is seeking to determine it.
So you lied when you said you read Del's book. Ya see we look for signs of agency involvement- ie agent activity. That is how it works in ALL design-centric venues. Then we can test the inference by figuring out if nature, operating freely, can produce it.
Evolutionary biology, molecular biology and embryology are making new discoveries on a wide scale.
And yet nothing to support their position. Go figure...Joseph_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox: I must have misread your comment of a while ago about studying marine biology. Studying marine biology does NOT translate into a career in marine biology.
So did you study marine biology for a while? At a recognised institution?
As for aiguy he is clueless and nothing will ever satisfy his quest for “intelligence”.
You may not like what he is saying, but it is obvious from his articulate comments, that aiguy is quite bright, even intelligent!
And Allen MacNeill is just as clueless as aiguy.
Calling Allen MacNeill clueless? That's clueless!
You do realize that as opposed to making ignorance-laiden cracks about ID all one has to do to refute the design inference is to demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can account for iy.
I suppose that refuting ID would not strengthen the evolution hypothesis, any more than claiming evolutionary theory is wrong strengthens the argument for ID. Furthermore, I don't see what there is that could be called the science of ID that is yet ready to be refuted.
IOW demonstrate that the object in question is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity. Support YOUR atelic position.
I don't have a philosophical position. I am still looking at evidence. Evolutionary biology, molecular biology and embryology are making new discoveries on a wide scale. It's fascinating. Not much ID research to report, yet, though.
Yse beavers design their dams.
Interesting. How do they learn their design skills? Beaver college?
Nature, operating freely could not build one.
Yet beavers appear to have instinctive behaviour patterns that result in dammed lagoons. They apparently display these behaviours even in captivity, isolated from wood and water.
Nature, operating freely could not build a spider’s web.
So the designer does it?
Nature, operating freely could not build a termite mound. All of those are examples of agency activity, and that is what ID seeks to determine- was agancy involvement required or did nature, operating freely produce it?
You are at once saying agency activity (whatever that is) designs beaver dams and at the same time ID is seeking to determine it.
Ya see experience has taught us that it matters a great deal to any investigation whather or not that which is being investigated arose via agency involvement or nature, operating freely.
I guess that is the crux of the matter. Demonstrate that an unknown, unseen, undetectable agent tweaks living organisms would be an interesting thing to demonstrate. I await developments.
RM and NS predicts that organisms vary, and are differentially selected by their immediate environment.
M'kay!
The YEC model of variation within a KInd makes that prediction also.
Ah, but remember nested hierarchies. In the ToE model, all organisms must fall into clades of descent, back to the universal common ancestor. I didn't realise YECs agreed with this. Especially as 6,000 years is not long enough for this to happen.
Does the theory of evolution make any exclusive predictions?
Apparently not, if YECs accept evolutionary theory.
That is something that ONLY its proposed mechanisms could produce?
Er, can't parse this.
As for evidence of ID what part of transcription, with its proofreading, error-correction and editing, strikes you as being cobbled together via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
I admit this is a hard one. The evolution of the genetic code is possibly impossible to elucidate. Work continues.
What part of translation, with its signaling of a tRNA to bring the correct amino acid to the ribosome and then stringing those amino acids together, strikes you as being cobbled together from an accumulation of genetic accidents?
Work continues.
What I am trying to say is what is the evidence for the atelic position? Perhaps if there was some evidence for it then so many people wouldn’t reject it.
Science cannot address teleology. It can only work with what is observable, detectable, testable. Science will not find God. But science will continue to look for natural explanations.Alan Fox_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

Jerry writes:
It is represented here on this site and in the academic and popular literature by the lack of any coherent demonstration that Darwinian macro evolution ever took place. Now macro evolution did take place and no one is denying that here but there is no evidence for it happening by Darwinian processes or any other known natural processes.
For those who still think macrovolutionary processes have not or cannot be observed or examined experimentally, I suggest reading this essay by molecular biologist Art Hunt on his blog The RNA Underworld: "Is macroevolution impossible to study (Part 2)?
The plant kingdom is many things – the basis of agriculture and civilization, a natural laboratory with a stupefying capability in organic synthesis, a source of untold numbers of pharmaceuticals, antimicrobials, herbals, and other chemical playthings, a fascinating range of biological form and function, and an eminently accessible subject for studies of evolution. Along the lines of the last two bullets, one of the more interesting aspects of plants is the range of growth habits that may be adopted. Among these are two sets of contrasting characteristics – annual or perennial, and herbaceous or woody. Differences in these characteristics are among the bases for classification of plant species. For this reason, but also because accompanying morphological differences can be quite considerable, evolutionary changes that involve transitioning between these states are macroevolutionary. Thus, it stands to reason that studying the means by these characteristics evolve amounts to experimental analysis of macroevolution, and understanding the underlying mechanisms constitutes an explanation of macroevolutionary processes.
The article goes on to describe work with the plant Arabidopsis thaliana in which mutaions to two genes resulted in dramatic changes to the plant's reproductive growth habits, changes that would, if found in two different populations would place them in different higher taxa. In other words, small, microevolutionary processes can be observed to produce macroevolutionary types of changes. The article can be found here: http://aghunt.wordpress.com/2008/11/22/is-macroevolution-impossible-to-study-part-2/Dave Wisker_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
Why do you never venture to other sites where evolutionary biologists might dispute your assertion “that there is no evidence for macro evolution”?
It appears that evolutionary biologists use a definition of "macro-evolution" that is not being debated by anyone. Allen MacNeill has continually proved that very thing.Joseph_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

“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.” If Intelligent Design is true I would expect to see signs of agency involvement. If we fail to observe signs of agency involvement or the signs we do see turn out to be producable vua nature, operating freely, then ID is at risk of disconfirmation. IOW to falsify ID all one has to do is demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can produce the object/ event in question. What part of that don't you guys understand?Joseph_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
We need a definition of “information”.
You mean one that you will accept. Information is what makes us what we are and it enables us to communicate. You also asked for a definition of "design" and that is presented in Del Ratzsch's book that you said you have read ("Nature, Design and Science"). Alan the evolutionary scenario doesn't have anything rigorously defined. The premise is so vague it is useless. The bottom line is you need to stop griping about ID and actually find something that would support the atelic position. That should be easy given all the resources at the evolutionists disposal. Yet even though we know much, much more about eyes and vision systems than Darwin did, the "evidence" for their evolution is the SAME!!! That is we see varying degrees of complexity in yeyes and vision systems and we "know" the original population(s) did not have either (therefor they evolved). And that is just sad...Joseph_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

Biped @ 173:
In any case, this is nothing more than a blind assertion without merit. I ask you: “Why” would we have to solve OOL before we could “test” whether the information in DNA was actually information after all?
I don't know. Ask the guy who asserted it. I asserted something else, something pertaining to your original, quickly abandoned, "test" of ID: Biped @ 107:
If the theory of design is true, then we should observe physically inert meaning in the origin of Life. If we fail to observe it, then the theory is at risk of disconfirmation
"Origin of life" was no typo, as demonstrated by the subsequent paragraph:
But, if we do find physically inert meaning in the origin of Life (and we do), but you refuse to acknowledge the validity of the observable evidence, then it is up to you to explain a physical source for it.
I pointed out the uselessness of your prediction in 111:
Seems to me that your prediction requires a solution to the origins of life before it can be tested. But were the solution to the origins of life in hand, we would already know whether or not life was designed - and we would of necessity have attained that understanding without research guidance from your prediction. So that’s not a prediction that is very useful.
Much of yours that follows is an extrapolation of what I didn't say:
Are you saying that until we know the answers to the origin of information and how that information came about, then Francis Crick cannot assume that he has found something? Are you then saying that all the scientist working on the Information Paradox are wasting time because the information that drives living systems cannot be recognized as information until we know how it came about? Is it that no one can know anything about the qualities of the information until then? Shall we then make a list of all the other things we make assumptions upon without knowing how they came about?
No, Indeed, I am not even saying "we have to solve OOL before we could 'test' whether the information in DNA was actually information after all." That was some other guy. ------------- Biped continues @ 173
While I am here, please allow me to also help you along with your “circular argument” argument. A circular argument is something like “you can believe what I say, because I said so”, where the conclusion assumes the premise. But this is not the type of comment you asked for. You asked a very specific question about observations: “If x, then y”. Notice that word (”then”) between the x and the y? It plays an important role in your question. Along with the “If” at the start of the sentence, the two words are essentially asking for a meaningful equality to be placed both before and after the “then.” In other words, the qualities inherent in the theory should be equated with the qualities seen in the observations. If that meaningful equality exist, then it does not make it a circular argument, it makes the IF part valid by virtue of having a meaningful equality with the THEN part. If your logic leads to believe otherwise, then every “If x then y” question in science is wrong.
This is far too gauzy. What you need is a formulation that unequivocally permits reasoning by modus tolens. I've repeatedly stated what is required. For example, I explicitly stated in 38 above that the formula "“if my theory is true, then we should observe _____. If we fail to observe ______, then my theory is disconfirmed" is a simplified expression of "one’s theory must generate entailments (necessary consequences) that give rise to testable empirical predictions, such that failure to observe what is predicted places one’s theory at risk of disconfirmation." You claim that what is needed is something you call "meaningful equality." You don't want it to mean "identity" (you correctly observe that if you state, “If design is true, then design will be observed” then you have have made a completely meaningless comment.) But you do want it to mean "The qualities inherent in the theory should be equated with the qualities seen in the observations." So let's test "meaningful equality" as above for coherence with an unequivocal example: Big Bang theory entails the cosmic background radiation. That converts to, "If Big Bang theory is true, then we should observe CBR (including many characteristics specified with considerable precision). If we fail to observe CBR, then Big Bang theory is disconfirmed." Big Bang theory has entailments (necessary consequences) that give rise to testable predictions (we will observe the CBR) such that failure to observe the CBR puts Big Bang theory at risk of disconfirmation. Indeed, had the CBR not been observed, BBT would have been rejected. No let's try your fuzzy "meaningful equality" test. "The qualities inherent in the theory should be equated with the qualities seen in the observations." Therefore we ask, "Are the qualities inherent in Big Bang theory equatable with the qualities seen in the cosmic background radiation?" The answer is no. First, Big Bang theory is a theory, the presence of the CBR is a predicted observation. They are expressions at different levels of abstraction. Theories cannot be empirically observed; that is why we go to the trouble of specifying necessary empirical entailments related to the theory by means of modus tolens that can be observed. Second, Big Bang theory obviously includes a great many other crucial assertions and predictions beyond the existence of the CBR. The "qualities" of Big Bang theory" are not coterminal with that of the CBR, and in fact entail far more than the CBR. Big Bang theory and the CBR are not related because they they display "meaningful equality" in the sense you describe above; they are related because the former entails the latter, and the latter is observable. A few other observations arise from this application. "Physically inert meaning" is a very vague concept, and fading fast. I thought I understood it to refer to something like the independence of Turing computation from the underlying physical substrate, but your illustration vis the red plastic ball seems to suggest something more general, non computational, with nothing necessarily to do with information, symbols, or meaning. I understand that a plastic ball has a form imposed upon it that does not arise directly from the physics of the polymers of which it is composed. But there is no "meaning" or "symbol" content that I can see. Given that "physically inert meaning" has now been exemplified by phenomena as diverse as human languages, animal communication, substitutable associations between codons and events downstream, and now the form of a red plastic ball, it seems to me that, before you can offer it as an "observation," and as a necessary entailment of design, the notion is sorely in need of sharpening and operational definition such that we can have SOME idea of when we are observing it, and when we are not.Diffaxial_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
I must have misread your comment of a while ago about studying marine biology.
Studying marine biology does NOT translate into a career in marine biology. As for aiguy he is clueless and nothing will ever satisfy his quest for "intelligence". And Allen MacNeill is just as clueless as aiguy. You do realize that as opposed to making ignorance-laiden cracks about ID all one has to do to refute the design inference is to demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can account for iy. IOW demonstrate that the object in question is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity. Support YOUR atelic position. Yse beavers design their dams. Nature, operating freely could not build one. Nature, operating freely could not build a spider's web. Nature, operating freely could not build a termite mound. All of those are examples of agency activity, and that is what ID seeks to determine- was agancy involvement required or did nature, operating freely produce it? Ya see experience has taught us that it matters a great deal to any investigation whather or not that which is being investigated arose via agency involvement or nature, operating freely.
RM and NS predicts that organisms vary, and are differentially selected by their immediate environment.
The YEC model of variation within a KInd makes that prediction also. Does the theory of evolution make any exclusive predictions? That is something that ONLY its proposed mechanisms could produce? As for evidence of ID what part of transcription, with its proofreading, error-correction and editing, strikes you as being cobbled together via an accumulation of genetic accidents? What part of translation, with its signaling of a tRNA to bring the correct amino acid to the ribosome and then stringing those amino acids together, strikes you as being cobbled together from an accumulation of genetic accidents? What I am trying to say is what is the evidence for the atelic position? Perhaps if there was some evidence for it then so many people wouldn't reject it.Joseph_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

Jerry, Why doesn't Bob O'Hara post here any more? It is simply because he can't. Ask Clive, he will confirm it. He is far from the only one. Why do you never venture to other sites where evolutionary biologists might dispute your assertion "that there is no evidence for macro evolution"?Alan Fox_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
01:31 AM
1
01
31
AM
PDT}

In our experience, the only ‘rule-givers’ are intelligent agents.
What are intelligent agents? Are sentient beings intelligent? Are humans intelligent? How intelligent? Is intelligence defined? There is a thread at Telic Thoughts where a commenter, aiguy, would like some definitions of intelligence. Have a look at the comments. Allan MacNeill makes some good points, too.Alan Fox_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT}

Bob O'Hara was asked more than once to provide a defense of Darwinian evolution and he never replied. Once he suggested an old text book. That was it. Allen MacNeill was asked to give a defense of macro evolution and said there was no model to explain it. Another time he gave examples of micro evolution. Jack Krebs was asked to defend macro evolution as science. He refused every time he was asked. Jack said he had studied evolutionary biology. He once broke down and provided micro evolutionary examples and when called on it only said that the experts said it was so. The only honest anti ID person here who was an evolutionary biologists and used the name great_ape said there wasn't any evidence but because of all genome similarities believed in naturalistic evolution. great_ape hasn't posted in about two years. There have been other biologists here who have posted and they have failed to add anything. So I believe there is overwhelming evidence that there is no evidence for macro evolution.jerry_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply