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

Does the theory of evolution make any predictions based on its proposed mechanisms? No. So what is diffaxial's point? BTW diffaxial, your alleged "mountain of evidence" doesn't exist.Joseph_{May 23, 2009
May
05
May
23
23
2009
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

Hoki, Read "Nature, Design and Science" by Del Ratzsch- he explains what nature, operating freely is.Joseph_{May 23, 2009
May
05
May
23
23
2009
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

CJYman:
“If the theory of design is true, then we should observe physically inert meaning in the origin of Life.”
Actually, that should be brought from the level of “in the origin of life” to “within life.”
Yes, because it is hopeless in the form suggested by Upright for the reasons I note above. But it remains hopeless with your modification, because it now becomes a "prediction" in the same sense that upon gazing upon the blue sky I state, "My theory predicts that the sky is blue," Aristotle notwithstanding. If your theory is to become scientifically fertile it needs to make meaningful NEW predictions, in such a way that it is subject to meaningful revision or even rejection in response to observations that test those predictions. You (and several others) advance by means of very idiosyncratic language ("physically inert meaning," etc.) a common notion: the fundamental independence of turing computation from the substrate upon which that computation is instantiated. And you seem to think that such a system would be more difficult for selection to find than, for example, a symbol system that is dependent upon the particulars of physical and/or chemical causation, and hence functions at a lower level of abstraction. But the reverse may be true. In the instance of the more abstract system, a vast number of physical arrangements can serve as the physical instantiation of a given computational operation (what Hilary Putnam calls "multiple realizability"). This contrasts with a "physically wired" symbol system that is dependent upon the causal properties (say, the chemistry) of the system. In that instance, only one particular physical instantiation will do. It follows that the latter will be much more difficult for variation and selection to "find" than the former. So your fundamental assumption - that a computationally abstract system is more difficult to attain, and therefore requires intelligence, while a system that does not employ such abstraction does not - is simply false.
Now, what is needed next beyond that positive prediction is a negative prediction — a no-go theorem which will provide potential falsifiability for ID Theory … “Any system composed of chance and law absent previous intelligence will not produce physically inert meaning/function.”
I wonder how many times this will need to be repeated? The above is a test of the alternative theory, not of ID. It would not follow from the failure of the alternative that ID is correct. Both can be wrong. The entire population of U.D., USA seems to be particularly dense on this point.
That is easily testable by setting up a program whereby an arbitrary set of laws (to rule out a set of laws chosen with regard for future consequences — foresight) interacts with random (generated by a random number generator based on atmospheric noise) initial and boundary conditions. What is produced? Is there even any theoretical evidence that such a process will produce physically inert function.
This is beyond ridicule. You think building a simulation of a lawful universe of sufficient richness to yield complex organisms characterized by computational abstraction would be "easy"? And that were you to fail to produce a functioning simulation the conclusion is justified that the events you attempted to simulate could not have occurred? Wouldn't your conscience be nagged by the possibility that your understanding of the underlying events and/or your skill at understanding and constructing such simulations may have been lacking?
ID Theory: 1. Observe that intelligence precludes physically inert “meaning/function.” 2. Use that observation to predict that any system purported to be intelligently designed will, upon further investigation, be found to contain physically inert function/meaning. 3. Provide a falsifiable and testable statement such as “law and chance absent intelligence will not generate physically inert function.” 4. Continue to “do science.”
Number 1: This isn't an observation. It's an assumption. Number 2: Now you are predicting what you have just assumed. Number 3: This isn't a test of your theory. It is a test of the alternative theory. Number 4: You can't "continue" to do science when you haven't done any in the first place.Diffaxial_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT}

You’re confusing me with Diffaxial. I’m flattered, but we are distinct individuals. He is Lord of the Speakers, and I am Lord of the Flies.
And University trained.Diffaxial_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT}

CJYman, Diffy doesn't need my help. In any case, I'm busy fishing for souls on a couple of other threads.beelzebub_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT}

Apparently its a bit too late for me right now. Apologies again, beelzebub. My last comment is to be addressed to Diffaxial. ... or if indeed you are flattered to be confused with Diffaxial as a result of any supposed quality of his argument, you may wish to help him out a bit. So with that I am off to bed.CJYman_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT}

My apologies ... Point 1. in my last post: "precludes" should be "precedes."CJYman_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

CJYman, You're confusing me with Diffaxial. I'm flattered, but we are distinct individuals. He is Lord of the Speakers, and I am Lord of the Flies.beelzebub_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

Beelzebub and Upright, Upright: "If the theory of design is true, then we should observe physically inert meaning in the origin of Life." Actually, that should be brought from the level of "in the origin of life" to "within life." And, we have already discovered physically inert symbolic representation at the foundation of life. And no this is not merely a post-diction as I do believe that it was Aristotle (long before life was understood) who described how the effects of "telic processes" are not defined by the properties of the material utilized within the system in question -- that is, Aristotle's observation can be summed up as a prediction for future cases: "an intelligently designed system will contain a physically inert aspect." I believe he referred, as an example, to how a ship's configuration is not in the physical properties of the wood used to create it. So that is one, and the main, positive prediction which has been observed within life. That prediction is further derived from the observation that an intelligent system known as a "human" is capable of utilizing his/her foresight in order to produce physically inert systems: ie. language, code, and machines. Now, what is needed next beyond that positive prediction is a negative prediction -- a no-go theorem which will provide potential falsifiability for ID Theory ... "Any system composed of chance and law absent previous intelligence will not produce physically inert meaning/function." That is easily testable by setting up a program whereby an arbitrary set of laws (to rule out a set of laws chosen with regard for future consequences -- foresight) interacts with random (generated by a random number generator based on atmospheric noise) initial and boundary conditions. What is produced? Is there even any theoretical evidence that such a process will produce physically inert function? ID Theory: 1. Observe that intelligence precludes physically inert "meaning/function." 2. Use that observation to predict that any system purported to be intelligently designed will, upon further investigation, be found to contain physically inert function/meaning. 3. Provide a falsifiable and testable statement such as "law and chance absent intelligence will not generate physically inert function." 4. Continue to "do science." p.s. ID Theory also requires the physically inert configuration to contain CSI to effectively rule out chance on two levels -- high improbability and specificity (correlation). p.p.s. "Physically inert" can also be replaced with "formally organized," as explained in David L. Abel's published article, "The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity" to provide a more detailed prediction. BTW, Beelzebub, I'm still curious of your answer for my comment #101.CJYman_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT}

Upright:
If the theory of design is true, then we should observe physically inert meaning in the origin of Life.
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. Moreover, your prediction appears to arise from an assertion that "physically inert meaning" is an essential component of design. (I don't see why this follows - why a designer could not create initial designs absent this feature, say, using less abstract, physically specified meaning - but hey, it's your theory). This makes your prediction somewhat tautological: all you are really predicting is that when OOL is solved, life will be found to have been designed, as indicated by the presence of a necessary indicator of design. Again, no help.Diffaxial_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

Mr Allanius, We don't need words such with teleological baggage such as goal, or perceived agency such as persistent and stubborn. Efficient and useful are enough. Does Hallucigenia look rational to you? Kidneys are as marvelous as lungs. Or as eyes. Pick an organ - it is marvelous. It took a long time to get that way.Nakashima_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

Ah... A three day weekend, a lake, a boat, a beautiful wife. Have a good weekend all...Upright BiPed_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

Adel, conclusions are a based upon reasoned hypotheses. Which, I believe, is exactly peeler's point. Many materialists want that the rules of engagement could trump reason, so that invalidated hypotheses may be retained in order to support a faulty conclusion. In other words, they want to argue over words instead of reason, meaning and truth. This is where you are now. I asked for the empirical support and reasoning that leads to the conclusion that only a mechanical cause is inferred by the observation of a symbol system embedded in living systems. To this, you want to banter about words...not meaning, not truth, and certainly not about the reasoning and support I asked for. You may or may not agree with Popper, but its worth a read.Upright BiPed_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

By the way Diffaxial, 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. 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. Be my guest.Upright BiPed_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

Upright, Do you understand the difference between an hypothesis and a conclusion?Adel DiBagno_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

And the empirical support and reason for concluding that only a mechanical cause is inferred by the observation of a symbol system embedded in living systems is...what?Upright BiPed_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler:
Your insistence on empiricism, while certainly “scientific” by todays shoddy standards, ignores REASON in the quest for truth.
Do you really believe that REASON is ignored in providing empirical support for empirical hypotheses? If so, hee hee.Adel DiBagno_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

Your hubris is showing. So if it’s not in the terms you describe then there’s nothing to talk about?
The topic, generally, was the scientific understanding of human origins, prompted by the report of the discovery of Ida. The questions I have posed reproduce the most rudimentary requirement of scientific epistemology, namely testable relationship to empirical observation. You're right to observe that, in the context of a discussion about the scientific understanding of human origins, I'm not interested in ramblings about the operation of Language and Mind in the origin of biological information that offer no hooks for empirical challenge.Diffaxial_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

"We understand you don’t believe it. But until you can express your above hokum in the terms I describe above (in terms of testable observational consequences), there are no alternatives." Your hubris is showing. So if it's not in the terms you describe then there's nothing to talk about? Hee hee. Good one. There is no sense in even trying to discuss something, anything with you unless and until you recognize the sovereignty of reason in matters of truth. I'm looking forward to your arguments against that proposition. Think about it. It will come to you. Your insistence on empiricism, while certainly "scientific" by todays shoddy standards, ignores REASON in the quest for truth. Observations without inferences to the best explanation are just data points. Therefore, you must also include REASON in your epistemology. If you won't acknowledge that then good luck to you. Have a nice day. Blah, blah, blah. No really. BTW, what exactly that I wrote is hokum? I notice that you failed to criticize any one thing in particular. If it's hokum then it should be easy for you to get specific. Please do. I made assertions and drew conclusions. Feel free to attack any or all of them. "THEY'RE HOKUM" is not really a very good argument where I come from. I can barely credit it that you are serious in that you think this is a valid way to attack arguments. Here's how it works. One starts with premises (or data) and reasons to conclusions. If the reasoning is valid, then you must attack the premises (or data) to defeat the argument. Unless, of course, you make self-defeating claims, in which case my work is done and thanks for doing it. BTW, when you argue against reason as the final arbiter of truth, you will be reasoning to defeat reasoning. Feel free to go ahead and try but I thought I'd give you a hint on that one.tgpeeler_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial: "Now that you know what “observation” in science is, express your vision in this form: “My theory is (insert stirring anthem to mind in nature here). If my theory is true, then we should observe _____. If we fail to observe ______, then my theory is at risk of disconfirmation.” Remember, “observe” in this context refers to seeing, measuring, weighing, counting, recording, and so on, with the assistance of instrumentation if needed." ... wait a minute. Do we actually have someone here who is willing to learn about ID Theory? Or is this just another case of someone not willing to do the research themselves and feels that their gift to the world is to utilize their own ignorance of ID Theory to "expose the IDists." So, what will it be Diffaxial? Do you honestly want answers to your question? Have you seriously done your due diligence and, having read material on ID Theory are yet unable to answer your own question? Which is it Diffaxial?CJYman_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

Peeler—where have you been all of my life? Another way to ask the question is: how do we account for the obvious rationality of nature? Body plans are rational; what in nature can account for this strange fact? How can that which is rational come from irrational materials? A kidney is a very bright idea. Without the bright idea of “kidney” in mind, how exactly did nature go about the laborious process of bringing “kidney” into being from nothing? For that matter, what caused nature to commence “kidney” in the first place? Is nature a little like Noah, building his ark before there were even clouds in the sky? Nature certainly showed a lot of faith in “kidney” to work so hard on something that cannot possibly have any value until the labor is complete. How and why were the earliest changes leading to “kidney” preserved? Why did “kidney” steadfastly overcome all of the obstacles to being if there was no goal in mind? What, is “kidney” just very, very persistent? Stubborn? Let the soaring rhetoric begin. Find Obama’s speechwriters and let them pour on the substanceless confetti about deep time, gradualism, nature’s mysteries, etc. Better yet, get Obama himself. The site could use a little eye candy.allanius_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

tgpeeler @ 93:
(A stirring anthem to Mind in nature. Cheers rise from the gallery.)
Now that you know what "observation" in science is, express your vision in this form: "My theory is (insert stirring anthem to mind in nature here). If my theory is true, then we should observe _____. If we fail to observe ______, then my theory is at risk of disconfirmation." Remember, "observe" in this context refers to seeing, measuring, weighing, counting, recording, and so on, with the assistance of instrumentation if needed. While empirical observation and science are not synonymous or coterminal, the expression of one's thesis such that it has observable consequences is a necessary condition for the actual doing of science. What observable facts are entailed by your theory of the origins of information in biology, such that failure to observe them places your theory of at risk of disconfirmation? If you can get your argument into this form, then we'll have something to discuss. With respect to how the current model accounts for the origination of biological novelty and information, read some biology. Or even this web site, where Allen MacNeill has already referenced 50 known sources of variation among organisms, and hence novel genetic information. Selection further imports information from the environment regarding the relative, local adaptive value of these variations in the form of differential reproductive success. The combined result is, inevitably, evolutionary change and sometimes, particularly when combined with population effects (e.g. allopatry), evolutionary novelty (e.g. speciation). That's the explanation (in its barest possible expression). Of crucial importance: this model provides the basis for empirical research world wide, and hence the further, incremental acquisition of knowledge that, in turn, further modifies theory. Once the the unhelpful hubbub surrounding Ida subsides (including excited pant-hoots from UD and similar sources), it will be apparent that her discovery has contributed to this process. We understand you don't believe it. But until you can express your above hokum in the terms I describe above (in terms of testable observational consequences), there are no alternatives.Diffaxial_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

Oh gee. Where did the Darwinists go? And I was so looking forward to a naturalistic explanation of information. Darn. Another time, I guess. Later guys... :-)tgpeeler_{May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT}

If, for example, someone were to organize Joseph’s and Mapou’s contributions on nested hierarchies and physics, for example, that would save a lot of repetition.
Woops. Speaking of saving a lot of repetition...herb_{May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

Jerry,
I do wish the anti ID people would learn some science.
Seconded. I wonder, is there something like a collection of "hall of fame" posts here? Maybe a voting system could be implemented that would allow us to identify particularly substantive science posts. If, for example, someone were to organize Joseph's and Mapou's contributions on nested hierarchies and physics, for example, that would save a lot of repetition.herb_{May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

You go peeler. :)Upright BiPed_{May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

If this is simply an exquisetly preserved lemur skeleton, it only means something if you accept universal common ancestry. If you don't accept common descent then this is just a remarkable speciment of a prehistoric lemur and not great-great (a thousand times) grandma Ida. PS trying to be humorous in that last paragraph. :)SaintMartinoftheFields_{May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

"Can you provide any evidence, observational or theoretical, of an evolutionary algorithm which produces CSI self-generating from an arbitrary set of laws (to rule out a set of laws configured with consideration of future results — teleology) interacting with chance occurences (random numbers generated based on atmospheric noise)? Will law and chance absent previous intelligence (foresight and [present] choice with [future] intent) generate said algorithm?" He cannot. "They" cannot. And they will never be able to. Here's why, in a nutshell. Information requires language. Language requires symbols and rules. Symbols mean the representation of one thing for another and rules mean agreed upon conventions that enable communication to take place. (Vocabulary, grammar, syntax - without these, there is no meaning, or semantic content.) In any naturalistic account of things, mind, and certainly Mind, are excluded. All they have by way of explanatory resources are the laws of physics. But the laws of physics have nothing to say about why the symbols "cat" refer to a certain kind of mammal or the rules that govern why that is true. Only mind is capable of representing one thing for another in alignment with the conventions of a language to create information. Physics cannot. Not now. Not ever. This is because contingency is required for the creation of information. Any algorithm based on a regular physical law, say gravity, cannot create information because in order to create information I must choose from among a set of symbols those that combine in a certain way to communicate my message. It takes a mind to do this. The next card "they" play is the chance card but chance is obviously incompetent to create information. Use a random letter generator and see if you get anything that makes sense. In fact, it doesn't even make sense to do that because that ALREADY assumes the existence of the symbols and the rules. Which are only possible in the presence of mind. Naturalism, materialism, and physicalism, are all intellectually bankrupt "isms" that have nothing to say about anything. They are the products of wishful thinking and deliberate and willful denial of the obvious. Is it any wonder that intelligent conversation is difficult with people who reject the authority of reason in matters of truth?tgpeeler_{May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Prediction three: junk DNA
Little item hot off the press on this one: 'Junk' DNA Has Important Role, Researchers Find. ScienceDaily (May 21, 2009)steveO_{May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

Nnoel: "“The more I read these comments the more I see how ID is evolving ever day to look more like evolution and less like creationism.”" That is a rather strange comment to make, seeing that the evolution of complex and specified information is itself evidence of previous intelligence. An understanding of characteristics of a future target is necessary to presently configure an EA such that it will produce better than chance results (CSI). Can you provide any evidence, observational or theoretical, of an evolutionary algorithm which produces CSI self-generating from an arbitrary set of laws (to rule out a set of laws configured with consideration of future results -- teleology) interacting with chance occurences (random numbers generated based on atmospheric noise)? Will law and chance absent previous intelligence (foresight and [present] choice with [future] intent) generate said algorithm? Maybe it is you, Nnoel, who is just beginning to understand ID Theory?CJYman_{May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply