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

CJY @150, I believe what we're seeing here in the barren Australian outback is an extravagant display of "cause and effect conflation dance" by the native species Atheist-Darwinius. In this elaborate ritual, the male often tries to impress the female by convincing his prospect that the complexity of his hut was naturally formed over millions of years, and does so with an interpretive dance formally known as "the cause-effect conflation." In this sacred dance, the Darwinius motions his story in detail, yet carefully makes no distinction between the materials in his structure and the specific way in which they must have self-organized. The clever Darwinius insists that the mere existence of the materials is enough to sufficiently portray his story. This dance is often highly successful in its spectacularly exaggerated interpretive motion techniques, incorporating the "just-so-so" and even "the hand waive," making for an elegant conglomeration of substance to confuse the observer into submission. On the other hand, the local neighboring residents, formally known as the Theist-Intellectius-Designus prefer to infer design as the source of their complex dwellings. This species takes a much more straightforward approach before its prospects, preferring to demonstrate the mindful intuition, engineering, and creativity required for such structures to be organized instead of resorting to fanciful dance moves that tell an unlikely story. Consequently this reaches and even sometimes convinces subjects of the Darwinius species. For this the Darwinius holds his neighboring residents in contempt, constantly lashing out with mockery and slinging concentrated mixtures of wet earth. These attempts are hardly ever acknowledged by his sworn adversaries however, so when all else fails, he desperately reaches for the nearest bowl of spaghetti and meatballs.PaulN_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

Leviathan, You've been moderated.Clive Hayden_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

Leviathan,
Can you tell me where in what holy book it is written that a bungalow must be as single-story house without a basement?
What are you talking about here? What holy book? And what bungalow?Clive Hayden_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

Mr Computerist, You are correct! It would seem that eyes did not evolve to look straight into the sun. Perhaps evolution actually was driven to use reflected light, and light as filtered by the water column within a few meters of the surface. Why would that be? Perhaps because light relected off of food or predators is more useful that light straight from the sun. Just a possibility.Nakashima_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

Mr CJYman, You're leaving out the formal cause. Between the material cause and the efficient cause is the formal cause. My message was meant to point out that Joseph's use of 'bricks' with 'influence' was not apt. Bricks are the material cause of the house. The blueprint is the formal cause of the house, like the gene, and Denton would say that the formal cause influences the final product. The efficient cause is the architect, and Denton would say that the efficient cause determines the final product.Nakashima_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

The sun efficiently destroys the retina at approximately 4 hazardous milliwatts of UV, adding optics or magnification to the equation delivers up to 3 watts. I'm sure there are evolutionary fairytales to get around that fact, but as far as I can tell the sun is effectively detrimental to vision. Allowing penetrating UV rays without an attenuating filter indicates that if the eye evolved with the help of the sun it must have done so under controlled and specified condition/s. Looks like the probabilities of it happening by chance just keep mounting up.computerist_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
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." Heh?!?!?!? The sun guides the proteins into the correct configuration to create a living organism? So, if I take a pile of proteins and shine some sun on them, then they'll organize into living organisms? Now, I already know that you don't believe this, so what are you trying to get at here? 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. The house analogy is indeed an apt analogy. Nakashima: "Please try to keep up." Nakashima, I don't think that you should be asking Joseph to "keep up" until you can show that what you are talking about is indeed relevant.CJYman_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

Leviathan: "Joseph, are houses living organisms? Do they balance metabolism, consume resources, shuffle their genes with organisms of the opposite sex, and reproduce?" Leviathan, are you seriously ignoring what Joseph posted just so that you can take cheap shots at his intelligence? What in the world does that have anything to do with what Joseph wrote? Leviathan: "I fail to see how your analogy even attempts to make sense. I can call any house I want to by whatever name or style I please. You seem to have some sort of vague essentialist viewpoint where, in your reality, a rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit; and somehow you’ve translated this to nonliving objects. To you a colonial house is a colonial is a colonial. What you fail to realize is that these are just words and descriptive phrases we use to communicate ideas to each other." You mean you honestly didn't see the connection that Joseph clearly laid out between the building blocks of a house not determining the house just as the building blocks of life do not determine living organisms? A pile of bricks does not determine how those bricks will be placed together, nor does a pile of proteins determine how those proteins will be placed together. Simple enough? Leviathan: "Can you tell me where in what holy book it is written that a bungalow must be as single-story house without a basement?" Are you actually interested in contributing to the discussion? It appears not ...CJYman_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, 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. 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.Nakashima_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

Joseph at 145,
Nakashima, Do the bricks of a brick house determine the the type of house or do they just influence its construction? If you are correct they determine it. If I am correct they just influence its construction.
Joseph, are houses living organisms? Do they balance metabolism, consume resources, shuffle their genes with organisms of the opposite sex, and reproduce? I fail to see how your analogy even attempts to make sense. I can call any house I want to by whatever name or style I please. You seem to have some sort of vague essentialist viewpoint where, in your reality, a rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit; and somehow you've translated this to nonliving objects. To you a colonial house is a colonial is a colonial. What you fail to realize is that these are just words and descriptive phrases we use to communicate ideas to each other. Can you tell me where in what holy book it is written that a bungalow must be as single-story house without a basement?Leviathan_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

Nakashimade @136 definetly POTWosteonectin_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

Nakashima, Do the bricks of a brick house determine the the type of house or do they just influence its construction? If you are correct they determine it. If I am correct they just influence its construction.Joseph_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

Mr Jerry, Hiroshima is one of the best places for okonomiyaki! :)Nakashima_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

Zachriel:
Diverging, uncrossed lineages naturally form nested hierarchies.
They do not. That is a lie.
Even if changes to each lineage are random, they will form an observable nested hierarchy of character traits.
Follow up one lie with another. Again your anonymous nature means that you do not have to answer for all of your lies. Sweet (for you)...Joseph_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: The observed nested hierarchy is due to the reprodutive isolation of diverging lineages. Biologists are very interested in the process by which this divergence occurs, and it is critical evidence for the Theory of Evolution. jerry: You are making an assertion that is speculative and for which there is at best little evidence, namely that speciation causes most of the supposed hierarchies observed.
Diverging, uncrossed lineages naturally form nested hierarchies. Even if changes to each lineage are random, they will form an observable nested hierarchy of character traits.
jerry: What you are probably observing is a well designed mechanism for populations to adapt to changing environments and nothing else.
What we're observing is clear evidence of Common Descent.Zachriel_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Translating Nakashima: Nakashima has no idea where the informtion for the type of eye is and all he can do is repeat the unsiupported mantra- "it's in the genes", "it's in the genes." And again it isn't just Denton. That you harp on Denton proves you are clueless and just flailing away. Geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti said basically the same thing 8 years before Denton. And it is very telling that you can't provide any evidence and all you can do is post more foolishness. Super Sweet...Joseph_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

My wife and I had a fun night in Hiroshima eating okonomiyaki. We screwed it up greatly and I think the locals thought the gaijin were really a challenged species who had devolved from some primitive slug. But it tasted great.jerry_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Zachriel:
The observed nested hierarchy is due to the reprodutive isolation of diverging lineages.
That is nonsense. The observed nested hierarchy has nothing to do with reprodictive isolation nor diverging lineages. The observed nested hierarchy is built on defined characteristics and "who's your momma/ daddy?" is not one of them. Also diverging lineages do not require that those defined characteristics be immutable.
Biologists are very interested in the process by which this divergence occurs, and it is critical evidence for the Theory of Evolution.
Divergence occurs with variations within a Kind also. But anyways you seem to be stiuck on nested hierarchy even though both you and Allen MacNeill have provided the evidence that a nested hierarchy should not be observed given diverging lineage you still, for unknown reasons, try to present nested hierarchy as an expected outcome. Now I understand why you choose to remain anonymous.Joseph_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

"The observed nested hierarchy is due to the reprodutive isolation of diverging lineages. Biologists are very interested in the process by which this divergence occurs, and it is critical evidence for the Theory of Evolution." You are making an assertion that is speculative and for which there is at best little evidence, namely that speciation causes most of the supposed hierarchies observed. And there is good reason to believe that speciation is incapable of causing many of the observed relationships. "There are many mechanisms of speciation. Allopatric speciation occurs when a population is separated by geography. Natural selection, random genetic changes, or genomic mechanisms lead to divergence in physically isolated populations. Eventually, even if the lineages meet again, they may be reproductively isolated by behavior, by preferred habitat, by genomic mechanisms, or by physical differences in copulatory organs." You are not telling us anything we do not know. It is still not important in the grand debate. It is interesting and certainly worth a lot of research but nothing to date has shown it is causative of anything relative to macro evolution, the way we use the term. What you are probably observing is a well designed mechanism for populations to adapt to changing environments and nothing else. But this mechanism is incapable of generating all the myriad of capabilities we see in the current suite of organisms on the planet. We must look to some other process for that. And so far naturalistic explanations have fallen far short.jerry_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

Tritonomy 8:16 And if thou causeth Coca-Cola to spew from the mouth of thy neighbor and his keyboard ceaseth to function, thou shalt repay him fourfold.R0b_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

Through communion with the FSM, the Pasta, the Meatball, and the Holy Sauce, I was granted a vision of Aristotle, who spake thusly, Nakashima thou fool, canst thou not see? Consider my explanation of causes, and stop bothering Joseph to explain that which he knoweth not. The material cause of the eye of a fly is the protein and other bits and bobs - the crystallin after its kind, the rhodopsin after its kind, etc etc etc. The formal cause of the eye of a fly is the genes of each cell, both the cells that constitute the eye and the cells which precede the eye, back unto the egg. And by this thou shalt include the genes of the mother fly, that secreteth a gradient in her eggs to guide their development. The efficient cause of the eye of the fly is that agent whose agency designeth, and outsourceth, which thou know well. (Marinara, pray for us!) The final cause of the eye of the fly is to guide the fly in its way of life, to clean up the world. Its niche, if thou willeth. And thou art a fool, Nakashima, for not grasping immediately that my servant Denton hath used 'influence' only to mean the formal cause, and 'determine' only to mean the efficient cause, which distinction Joseph canst not articulate. Nor elucidate. Nor play on the sackbut. But I digresseth. And Aristotle said, Nakashima thou worm, what doest thou? And I said, It is the twelth month, on the first day of the month, in the fourth year since the Hanshin Tigers won a championship, and I am standing on the banks of the Setagawa eating okonomiyaki. And Aristotle said, Get your nose out of your plate and look upward. And I looked upwards, and beheld the blue sky, with some clouds and haze, and in it the shining orb of the sun. And Aristotle said, See now, but not directly or you will hurt yourself, the efficient cause of which Denton hath said it determines the eye of the fly. Without the agency of this star, to give out frequencies of light of wavelengths after their kind, without this atmosphere, to absorb some of those frequencies and let others through, then the eye of the fly would be determined to be something else, or nothing at all, as happeneth in dark places and the bottom of the sea, and in the refrigerator before you open the door. But I digresseth. And I looked, and saw, but not directly, the agency to which Denton alluded. And I was filled with great joy, for I had finished my okonomiyaki. And also for understanding a little more about the world. I looked down, and saw that a fly had landed on my plate and begun to eat a crumb I had left. I smiled.Nakashima_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

jerry: Speciation is an arbitrary event because there is no hard and fast definition or example of it and it is unimportant no matter what way you define it.
Of course it's important. The observed nested hierarchy is due to the reprodutive isolation of diverging lineages. Biologists are very interested in the process by which this divergence occurs, and it is critical evidence for the Theory of Evolution. There are many mechanisms of speciation. Allopatric speciation occurs when a population is separated by geography. Natural selection, random genetic changes, or genomic mechanisms lead to divergence in physically isolated populations. Eventually, even if the lineages meet again, they may be reproductively isolated by behavior, by preferred habitat, by genomic mechanisms, or by physical differences in copulatory organs.Zachriel_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

jerry, It is now known that identical twins do not necessarily have the same DNA- IOW the DNA is not a match.Joseph_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

Someone once explained to me why identical twins are not really identical. When the cells split they are not exactly perfect and the protein distribution in the egg is not divided equally so each zygote will then develop a little differently. In other words the location and amount of the extra DNA proteins in the egg are a major determinant of development. Whether there are other determinants they essentially do not know but development needs more than DNA to proceed and what determines the sequencing of gene expression during development is from I understand a big mystery. Maybe someone with more knowledge on this could comment.jerry_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

"Jerry: So speciation itself is not the issue…No one is disputing speciation. Joseph: And that is why “species” is arbitrary. One of you is wrong." No, these two comments are not in contradiction and in fact if you read what I have said, I agree with Joseph completely. Speciation is an arbitrary event because there is no hard and fast definition or example of it and it is unimportant no matter what way you define it. If you go to the biological definition and extend it so a population group cannot interbreed with any other population under any circumstances then it is less arbitrary. But most of the species in the current classification system can probably breed with some other species. So yes the definition is arbitrary and still not at issue in the evolution debate.jerry_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

"The claim is that speciation comes first and then when they are isolated and do not interbreed, changes can occur. Who is making that claim? I think that is exactly backwards. Selectible variants are the engine of speciation." Dawkins, Coyne and every other evolutionary biologist I have read. I think you should read more. Where do you think the selectable variants are supposed to come from. If you have one population too much gene flow occurs and homogenization. You seem to be under the misunderstanding that the gene pool has within it the variation necessary for all the wonderful changes. Think origin of genes. If certain genes are not part of the gene pool there is no way natural selection can ever get to them.jerry_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

Nakashima, YOU can't provide any evidence from any biologist that demonstrates gene determine anything. And yes Denton has done the experiments- he was writing from experience. As have other biologists. However you haven't read what he wrote. And you sure as heck didn't read the references he provided. And the bottom line is you couldn't support your position if your life depended on it. So all you have to to doubt Denton because you are too lazy to read what he wrote. And you are too lazy to find the evidence to support your position- well not too lazy because you cannot find what does not exist. Sweeter...Joseph_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, Every biologist? Then I'm sure you can quote one, whom you understand with your educational background (which is ...?) that also holds that genes 'influence' development but don't 'determine' it. Color me skeptical. IOW, you can't. Has Dr Denton performed an experiment to remove all those genes which merely 'influence' development to show what it is that 'determines' the eye? No. IOW, you have no evidence. IOW, you can't support your position. Sweet.Nakashima_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Adel:
In Joseph biology, the recipe for making an eye is like the recipe for making a cake.
That's news to me.
The genes are like the ingredients in a cake.
The genes produce the required components. People produce the ingredients for a cake.
The instructions for making the cake are the information in the recipe.
Only given the ingredients.Joseph_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Ya see, In Joseph biology, the recipe for making an eye is like the recipe for making a cake. The genes are like the ingredients in a cake. The instructions for making the cake are the information in the recipe. So you may look, but you won't ever find those instructions in the genome.Adel DiBagno_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply