IC All The Way Down, The Grand Human Evolutionary Discontinuity, And Probabilistic Resources

_{Gil Dodgen

November 26, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

The more we learn the more it appears that almost everything of any significance in living systems is irreducibly complex. Multiple systems must almost always be simultaneously modified to proceed to the next island of function. Every software engineer knows this, and living things are fundamentally based on software.

Evolution in the fossil record is consistently characterized by major discontinuities — as my thesis about IC being a virtually universal rule at all levels, from the cell to human cognition and language, would suggest — and the discontinuity between humans and all other living things is the most profound of all. Morphological similarities are utterly swamped by the profound differences exhibited by human language, math, art, engineering, ethics, and much more.

Yes, chimps have been shown to use tools: They can pick up ants with a stick in order to eat them. But there is a big difference between this and designing and building a Cray supercomputer or an F-35 fighter aircraft. To the best of my knowledge our primitive simian ancestors did not advance beyond ant-stick technology.

I continue to be bewildered by the fact that proponents of human evolution by Darwinian mechanisms (i.e., random errors filtered by natural selection) don’t do some simple math to see that the probabilistic resources are hopelessly inadequate, even when the most optimistic assumptions are made.

Unrealistically and optimistically assume the following base-ten orders of magnitude: an average generation time of 10^1 years; an average population of 10^8; and a time frame of 10^7 years.

Do the math. With these probabilistic resources it is assumed by Darwinian theorists that their mechanism produced the most profound and stunning of all evolutionary discontinuities.

I believe that our ancient ancestors were just as smart as we are. They figured out, in their time and with what they had access to, how to make fire, bows and arrows, art, and much more. If I were to be transported back to those times, and be stripped of my current knowledge, I would probably be considered an idiot by the dudes who figured out fire and arrows.

Chimps are still picking up ants with sticks.

Something very profound happened, very suddenly, and Darwinian theory clearly does not explain it.

Comments

Voice Coil, All we know is that the DNA provides the PARTS. There isn't any scientific data which demonstrates the DNA is the blueprints. I have asked for peer-reviewed references that support yours and Nakashima's claim and no one has provided any. Go figure...Joseph_{December 4, 2009
December
12
Dec
4
04
2009
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT}

Mr Voice Coil, Further to your point, we don't actually see any scaling of the achitect's intelligence across many orders of magnitude of complexity in houses - the person who architects a birdhouse has about the same IQ (pace Gould) as the person who architected the Mall of America. An objection could be raised that any architect can make plans for something simpler than their most complex work. To build a bird's nest only requires a birdbrain. Joseph can have fun looking for the blueprints required for that analogy!Nakashima_{December 3, 2009
December
12
Dec
3
03
2009
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

CJ:
Voice Coil @177: “…has some limited merit (although I think Joseph and you are mapping the terms in a way that is mistaken)” Yet you haven’t been able to show our mistake, or explain how we are mistaken in our mapping.
Sure I have. I'll do it again. Joseph complains in 183 that it is incorrect to say that the information that determines the type of eye resides in DNA. He then maps the analogy incorrectly:
That is like saying the information for the type of house resides in the building materials.
That is incorrect. The correct mapping is, "That is like saying the information for the type of house resides in the blueprints." Which is an apt, as "information in DNA" is most analogous to "information in blueprints." So, in attempting to illustrate "determine" versus "influence," you misapply the analogy and arrive at an inappropriate illustration.
If there is an architect of life, that architect requires vastly more intelligence in terms of ability to plan than an architect of a house would require
This fails because home construction is completely devoid of features that, in evolutionary theory, account for the complexity of organisms, namely self-replication, variation, selection, and so forth. Therefore it reduces to the question begging premise: "If there is an architect of life" and implicity assumes the conclusion that self-replication (etc.) need not be modeled in one's analogy. Moreover, you then refer to an area of disanalogy between houses and organisms, namely the vast difference in their levels of complexity, to characterize an "architect of life" introduced by means of your begged-question.Voice Coil_{December 3, 2009
December
12
Dec
3
03
2009
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

Nakashima, I explained the difference between "determine" and "influence". The information that DETERMINES the type of eye does not reside in those 2000 genes. That is like saying the information for the type of house resides in the building materials.Joseph_{December 3, 2009
December
12
Dec
3
03
2009
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

The field of epigenetics is apparently showing that genes merely influence the final outcome, and it is other epigenetic factors along with the genetic factors which determine the outcome. In the end, as I stated earlier, the determination of the living organism must take into account "an intelligence and/or the laws of nature themselves along with other epigenetic factors (ie: organizing genes and proteins in the first place and then regulating and switching them on and off). Genes merely influence the development of the organism. The house analogy is indeed an apt analogy." Nakashima @179, Even when it comes to inserting mouse eye genes into a fruit fly genome, fruit fly eyes (as opposed to mouse eyes) will develop in the area that the gene is expressed. IOW, the gene for eyes merely influence the development of the eye -- they do not apparently even determine the type of eye that will develop.CJYman_{December 2, 2009
December
12
Dec
2
02
2009
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

Voice Coil @177: "…has some limited merit (although I think Joseph and you are mapping the terms in a way that is mistaken)" Yet you haven't been able to show our mistake, or explain how we are mistaken in our mapping. Voice Coil: "..., it quickly breaks down when discussing more distal origins, because essentially no features of construction of homes maps appropriately onto biological reproduction/self-replication." You're right and I never attempted to map an analogy from reproduction to house building, as that type of analogy wasn't necessary to show the difference between "influence" and "determine" as those terms relate to materials, controls, blueprints and a source. What I did state about the reproductive capacity of living organisms, though, was: "You are correct that living organisms are vastly more complex than houses and are extremely more challenging to build, especially since they have the ability to replicate. However, you are incorrect as to the analogy failing. If there is an architect of life, that architect requires vastly more intelligence in terms of ability to plan than an architect of a house would require." Voice Coil: "At that point the analogy fails, in that it is no longer useful." The analogy was as useful as was needed in order to explain the difference between "influence" and "determine," as well as providing a comparative subjective measure of the amount of intelligent planning needed if living organisms do indeed require an intelligent source as compared to the intelligence required to build a house.CJYman_{December 2, 2009
December
12
Dec
2
02
2009
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

I don't know if everybody realizes but we now have an anti ID person who understands the concept of information in biology and DNA. Nakashima believes there is information in the DNA about the fruit fly eye. So when all the know nothings who come here challenging us for a definition of what the information is or even if it exists, we can just send them to Nakashima. Thank you Nakashima who is making the slow journey to other side of the force.jerry_{December 2, 2009
December
12
Dec
2
02
2009
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, No, a peer-reviewed article that supports your claims that DNA is a blueprint and that genes determine the type of organism. My claim (back @54 for those of you scoring at home (congratulations! ))to which you responded: 74 Joseph 11/29/2009 10:57 am My point is no one knows where the information for “fruit fly eye” resides. Nakashima: In this paper on the unity of eye evolution, Walter Gehring seems to think it resides in a cascade of 2000 genes. When he has it figured out please let me know. As Dr Denton has stated genes may influence development but they do not determine it, just as assemblers may influence the design of that which they are assembling but they do not determine it. So perhaps WG can start swapping out or messing with those 2000 genes and see if he can get a different type of eye to develop in fruit flies. Our whole subsequent discussion has revolved around the use of 'influence' and 'determine' in this quote of Denton. But even though you could not explain those terms, I was granted a vision of Aristotle, who could. According to Denton, the information that resides in the DNA (AKA genes) is the blueprint of the cell (in analogy to the house) because the genes are the formal cause (in Dentonspeak influence) of the cell, just as the blueprints are the formal cause of the house. Bottom line: whether you want to speak like Denton or not, the information resides in the genes, just like it did 120 messages ago. Oswald Avery showed that. The particular set of information for a fruit fly eye resides in a particular cascade of 2,000 genes. If you disagree, bring your evidence. But you don't have any.Nakashima_{December 2, 2009
December
12
Dec
2
02
2009
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

I'm going to tangentially express agreement with Mr Nakashima on the Signature in the Cell. Although I disagree with Meyer on many points, some of them quite fundamental, I enjoyed the book as a historical account of OOL research and of Meyer's journey.R0b_{December 2, 2009
December
12
Dec
2
02
2009
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

CJ:
That most definitely does not follow from what you have written. The analogy of instructions, materials, determination, and influence definitely still apply. The only difference is that one of the systems is vastly more complex in terms of instructions, materials, and the application of those materials.
Of course, analogies don't explain - at best they serve as illustrations and perhaps as intuition pumps. When the terms of the two circumstances analogized map reasonably well the analogy can be helpful in this way; when they don't, the analogy fails to be helpful. The loose analogy... blueprints : bricks and mortar :: Information in DNA : proteins and structures built therefrom ...has some limited merit (although I think Joseph and you are mapping the terms in a way that is mistaken), it quickly breaks down when discussing more distal origins, because essentially no features of construction of homes maps appropriately onto biological reproduction/self-replication. At that point the analogy fails, in that it is no longer useful.Voice Coil_{December 2, 2009
December
12
Dec
2
02
2009
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

Mr PaulN, As it happens, I think Signature in the Cell has several good historical chapters in the beginning on DNA, and some of the fundamental experiments that proved DNA was the carrier of the heritable information for the cell, including a description of Avery's work. And if Joseph is predisposed to believe Dr Meyer, no reason not to take advantage of that.Nakashima_{December 2, 2009
December
12
Dec
2
02
2009
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

Nakashima, No, a peer-reviewed article that supports your claims that DNA is a blueprint and that genes determine the type of organism.Joseph_{December 2, 2009
December
12
Dec
2
02
2009
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

By George! Did Nakashima just defer to an ID BOOK in response to a request for peer reviewed research?? *checks outside to see if fire is raining down from the sky*PaulN_{December 2, 2009
December
12
Dec
2
02
2009
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, LOL, a peer reviewed article about the aptness of an analogy? If you are equivocating about what we are discussing, sorry. Signature in the Cell gives you the story of DNA from Oswald Avery onwards.Nakashima_{December 2, 2009
December
12
Dec
2
02
2009
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

CJYman: "The building material *influences* what possibilities can arise. However, even having all the necessary building materials still doesn’t *determine* the final product." Voice Coil: "So, yes, the materials influence, but to do not determine the final product. But in this instance the materials (bricks and mortar, lumber, nails, shingles) are are analogous to amino acids, proteins, minerals, and other materials from which the organism is constructed (imported from the local environment), and the blueprints analogous to the information borne by DNA." Somewhat ... the genetic regions of the DNA produce the materials. And then there seem to be other regions which regulate how those materials are expressed. However, there are also epigenetic factors. As I stated earlier, "If anything, it is either an intelligence and/or the laws of nature themselves along with epigenetic factors (ie: organizing genes and proteins in the first place and then regulating and switching them on and off) that determine a living organism. Genes merely influence the development of the organism." Voice Coil "The analogy fails when we begin discussing the architect who originated the blueprints. Homes are not replicating organisms and are not subject to descent with modification." You are correct that living organisms are vastly more complex than houses and are extremely more challenging to build, especially since they have the ability to replicate. However, you are incorrect as to the analogy failing. If there is an architect of life, that architect requires vastly more intelligence in terms of ability to plan than an architect of a house would require. Voice Coil: "Therefore analogies regarding home design and construction have nothing conceptual to offer contemporary theories of the origins of the instructions contained in DNA that determine the forms assumed by particular organisms, which are." That most definitely does not follow from what you have written. The analogy of instructions, materials, determination, and influence definitely still apply. The only difference is that one of the systems is vastly more complex in terms of instructions, materials, and the application of those materials.CJYman_{December 2, 2009
December
12
Dec
2
02
2009
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

Nakashima, Evidence- as in there isn't any evidence that DNA is a blueprint. So please feel free to start presenrting the peer-reviewed papers that support your claim. Otherwise I will be forced to think that you have nothing but bald assertions and hot air.Joseph_{December 2, 2009
December
12
Dec
2
02
2009
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, Also there isn’t any evidence that DNA is the “blueprints”. The DNA/blueprint analogy is quite pervasive as a Google search even of this site will show. So I will admit that you are certainly a fellow with the courage of your convictions, even if some of the convictions are for felonies against reason. The evidence for an analogy is simply how far it can be extendend. If I use a CAD program to knock out a window from the blueprints for a house, the final house is lacking a window. If I 'mutate' the scale from "1/2 inch = 1 foot" to "1/4 inch = 1 foot" then the entire house is built twice as large in every dimension. If I duplicate part of the wiring sheet, the final house has duplicate runs of wire in the walls. Since knock outs, mutations and duplications also happen to the genes encoded in DNA, with similar results to the final cell structure, most reasonable people would say it is a useful analogy. But Joseph, it is not useful to you, that is fine. Please share your alternative analogies, for which you have 'evidence'. Here, I'll start for you. The DNA in a cell is like the X of a house. The blueprints of a house are like the Y of a cell. You just have to fill in X and Y.Nakashima_{December 2, 2009
December
12
Dec
2
02
2009
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

Voice Coil:
Homes are not replicating organisms and are not subject to descent with modification. Do you think that it is OK to start with what requires an explanation in the first place? Also there isn't any evidence that DNA is the "blueprints".
Joseph_{December 2, 2009
December
12
Dec
2
02
2009
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT}

CJYman:
The building material *influences* what possibilities can arise. However, even having all the necessary building materials still doesn’t *determine* the final product.
If I would like 50 builders to build 50 identical homes in 50 states I distribute a copy of the construction plans to each of the builders. The blueprints specify the materials to be used. There may be minor local variation in the outcome due to variations in the materials available, local codes, sites selected, and construction techniques. But by and large the outcomes are very similar, because largely determined by the construction plans. So, yes, the materials influence, but to do not determine the final product. But in this instance the materials (bricks and mortar, lumber, nails, shingles) are are analogous to amino acids, proteins, minerals, and other materials from which the organism is constructed (imported from the local environment), and the blueprints analogous to the information borne by DNA. The analogy fails when we begin discussing the architect who originated the blueprints. Homes are not replicating organisms and are not subject to descent with modification. Therefore analogies regarding home design and construction have nothing conceptual to offer contemporary theories of the origins of the instructions contained in DNA that determine the forms assumed by particular organisms, which are.Voice Coil_{December 2, 2009
December
12
Dec
2
02
2009
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

PaulN @ 156, Excellent summary ... I have definitely seen that dance before. I think it is called the "obfuscanata." It is by no means an endangered dance. Of course, if all else fails ... "If you have any poo, fling it now" ...CJYman_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

Nakashima: "My message was meant to point out that Joseph’s use of ‘bricks’ with ‘influence’ was not apt." Joseph's analogy was actually right on the money. You don't have to be an architect to understand that the type and quality of building material influences yet does not determine the final product. How good of a skyscraper can be built with nothing but clay? The building material *influences* what possibilities can arise. However, even having all the necessary building materials still doesn't *determine* the final product. Correct me if I'm wrong, Joseph but that seems to be the main point that you having been making this whole time. If it is then, Nakashima, I'm not sure why you are having such a hard time with this. Or are you merely attempting to turn this into a battle of semantics?CJYman_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

Nakashima:
I think you are still confusing bricks and blueprints when trying to make an analogy to genes.
I never did that so how can I still be doing it? You are the one saying that genes determine the type of eye. Genes provide the materials. Bricks are materials. Bricks can influence the design- ie materials can influence a design- do you understand that materials can influence the final product? Would you rather have a product made out of the cheapest, most fragile stuff or a product designed and built to last- with good quality parts?Joseph_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, I think you are still confusing bricks and blueprints when trying to make an analogy to genes. The house is not made of blueprints, and the eye is not made of genes. But, mirabile dictu, we agree houses have designers.Nakashima_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

Anythings a possibility in the Darwinian world, thats why we call it a fairytale!computerist_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

Mr Computerist, I agree that water or ice lenses would make life significantly worse for an animal that spent its life staring at the sun. This may reflect (or refract) on the paucity of such specimens in the fossil record. However, the play of temprary caustics, caused by surface waves, would be less problematic, though they can make interpretation of the visual field more difficult. Others have noted earlier in this thread that the first reason to detect light may have in fact been to avoid it, as plankton do today. But this photosensitivity is far more primitive than the eye of even Cambrian animals.Nakashima_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

*Just to reduce any confusion, seems I forgot to include "water has a higher refractive index than air" onto the end of my last comment's first sentence.computerist_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

Water only makes the situation worse since magnification is a function of the bend or angle in light which is dependent upon the change in refractive index of the medium while light enters and leaves it. This results in far more detrimental effect compared to UV propagating through air especially for anything not planning for it. Its especially interesting since we can make a similar correlation with the distance of the earth to the sun. If the earth's distance to the sun was only 20 percent offset this would turn the planet into either an ice cube or a camp fire. If the eye evolved underwater, once again it must have been under extreme controlled and specified conditions that would allow it to evolve, in this case a constant relative depth for the organism for an incredibly long period of time. As for other possibilities, such as ice, we know that ice can concentrate enough light to produce a fire, looks like we can cross that out from the equation. And never-mind how complex and specified the eye really is.computerist_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

House analogy part 2: The builders and materials used influence every aspect of the design of the house but neither the builders nor the materials determine that design. The design was determined before the builders started getting the materials together. The genes just provide the building materials- bricks. Then something, other than those genes, has to direct the construction using the parts provided. Those would be the builders. That would mean that some designer has already told the builers what to build. Thank you Nakashima, we walked right to a design inference!Joseph_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

Nakashima:
Bricks are the material cause. The efficient cause is the architect. Just like in the case of the eye of the fly where proteins are the material cause and the sun is the efficient cause.
So the information for the type of eye came from the Sun? Too much pixie dust Nak.
Please try to keep up. You couldn’t explain the distinction between influence and determine in Dr Denton’s aphorism, but Aristotle explained it to me, so don’t let that bother you. If you think Denton means something different, bring it on.
The problem is that no one can explain anything to you Nak. I provided an example- more than one and you couldn't grasp the concept. Not only that you couldn't provide any data to support your claim. If you want to know about Denton then read the essay and follow the references. It is not my position to continually spoon-feed the willfully ignorant.Joseph_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

Leviathon, Nakashima used a jig-saw puzzle as an example. He seems to think that the pieces determine the final image. I told him the final image was determined by some agency (a person) and the jig-saw part came after. The point about the bricks is the same- if his jig-saw pieces determine the image then bricks must determine the type of house.Joseph_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply