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

_{GilDodgen
November 26, 2009

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

Nakashima:
No, the analogy is 2000 objects in a part-whole relationship to a larger object.
But people determine what is on a jigsaw puzzle. The part-whole is all part of an intentional design.
The picture on the puzzle is only roughly analogous to the eye of the fly because there are process relations amongst the 2000 genes, but not amongst the 2000 puzzle pieces.
The picture on the puzzle was put there intentionally- as a whole. It was not originally made up of 2000 pieces.
But, since jigsaw puzzles are simpler than gene cascades, I was hoping it would be simpler for you to point out in the puzzle example what the distinction between ‘influence’ and ‘determine’ means in Dentonian theory.
You seem to have mental issues. It isn't just Denton. It is every biologist. And we already know that the jigsaw puzzle pieces do not determine the picture. Only a dolt would think that.
And I’m sure you wouldn’t quote things out of a book that you don’t understand.
You don't seem to understand much of anything. And you sure as heck can't support your position. That explains your frustration... SweetJoseph_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

Voice Coil, Why is one of wrong?Joseph_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

Mr Voice Coil, For a given definition of 'arbitrary', they might agree! ;)Nakashima_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, No, the analogy is 2000 objects in a part-whole relationship to a larger object. The picture on the puzzle is only roughly analogous to the eye of the fly because there are process relations amongst the 2000 genes, but not amongst the 2000 puzzle pieces. But, since jigsaw puzzles are simpler than gene cascades, I was hoping it would be simpler for you to point out in the puzzle example what the distinction between 'influence' and 'determine' means in Dentonian theory. You are a Dentonian after all. And I'm sure you wouldn't quote things out of a book that you don't understand. And your education was...?Nakashima_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
04:36 AM
4
04
36
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.Voice Coil_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

Mr Jerry, 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.Nakashima_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

Perhaps if we forced lions and tigers to live together- to share the same savannah- the would interbreed freely and produce viable and healthy offspring. And that is why "species" is arbitrary. Heck if humans didn't have the technology to get around the world then human populations would be separate species by the same reasoning as lions and tigers are separate species.Joseph_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT}

Nakashima, In order for there to be an analogy there has to be some similarity. So are you saying that as with jigsaw puzzles some agency or agencies constructed a fruit fly and then cut it up into many, many pieces so that some other agency can put it back together? Is that your analogy? Because other than that there isn't anything.Joseph_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

Nakashima:
Well, if we go back to it, I was asking you the question of whether the pieces influenced the final picture or determined it.
We know that some agency or agencies determine the final picture.
In the Dentonian theory of development, this distinction seems to be important.
I see your problem- It isn't only Denton who says that. Asa matter of fact I doubt that you can find one biologist who says that genes determine anything and have the data that supports the claim.
The genes that merely influence development of the eye are like the cheerleading squad and marching band.
No, I have already told you- genes are like the parts that go into making something. The parts do not determine that object- some agency already did that.
But the genes that determine, these are the genes that are out there on the field, carrying the ball, toting the barge, lifting the bale.
What genes? As I said there isn't any evidence that genes determine anything. And you can't provide any data that supports the claim of determination genes.Joseph_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

"What I observe in your more lengthy post above is a real attempt to arrive at a concept of species that works," I am certainly not the one to come up with a definition of species and I have no qualifications to do so. The best I can do is read what the experts say and try to understand their reasoning and then make some comments. The points I have been making is that what seems like obviously different species to most people on closer look are not so clearly different. It is anything but clear. The debate that is at the essence here is not one of what is speciation or what is a species or not. They are interesting questions and certainly worth a lot of study. The debate is about macro evolution. And by macro evolution here we mean the origin of complex novel capabilities. For example, intertwined in all this mess is a discussion of the appearance of sight and eyes. The eye would classify an a prime example of a novel complex capability when it first appeared. The path to such a capability as sight is what is in question. The claim is that speciation comes first and then when they are isolated and do not interbreed, changes can occur. And over time these changes will lead to substantial modification of both the genome and phenotype of a population. And maybe to an eye. So speciation itself is not the issue. What is the issue is the nature of the changes that accumulate or appear over time and how these happen and how much they can change the organism. No one is disputing speciation. The most recent incarnation of discussing speciation came up about a week ago when someone assumed some things which were naive and I answered the person with my examples of how the idea of species is not so hard and clear. Sometimes I exaggerate to make the point. Hence, the exaggeration of "the use of the word is meaningless." Let's take the Galapagos finches. If speciation is to be a useful concept in the evolution debate, then one has to have some evidence that meaningful change can occur due to this process. The appearance of the various forms of finches may or may not qualify as species but is this meaningful. The Grants have said that it takes over 20 million years for the finches to become incapable of breeding and thus incapable of sharing genes. Now granted in that amount of time there may be many sub-populations that won't interbreed but the 20 million years means their genomes are very similar for a very long time and have experienced very little change. So the real issue is the time necessary for substantial change to occur. You dug up my comment on what is ID research and in it if you read it, know that I make the point that the genomes contain the evidence on whether major change is capable or not and just what change has actually taken place. ID's point is that substantial change is not possible through naturalistic processes, not that change does not happen or that populations do not adapt. So ID puts its evolutionary biology hat on and makes different conclusions than do most of the evolutionary biology community. As Allen MacNeill has pointed out so many times here the debate is over the origin of variation in the gene pool or new information and this means selection is just a side show till it has significant new variation in the gene pool to possibly select. It is not the origin of species that is important, it is the origin of variation or new information in the genome. The rest is as I said a side show.jerry_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

Nakashima: "What I intended was to show that all at once solving the problem – random pieces to coherent assembled picture – was improbable, but an iterated, population based approach could solve the problem over multiple iterations." All you have shown is that by utilizing a teleological approach we are able to solve the problem. No different than "Me thinks it is like a weasel" and we've all been around that block a few times. So, yes an iterated, population based approach could solve the problem as long as, per your example, the end goal is used as a filter ... so I stand by what I stated earlier ... "this reeks of intelligent design." JOIN THE DARK SIDECJYman_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

Jerry:
I tend to support the commonly accepted position for what a species is and that is, the inability to inter breed. I have read and watched videos on this topic from at least a dozen different sources. So it is not that I am unaware of what is at stake here…
That is a very far cry from,
The use of the word is meaningless.
What I observe in your more lengthy post above is a real attempt to arrive at a concept of species that works, and "carves nature at the joints." Because nature is complex, subtle and contingent, a concept of species that carves nature usefully (e.g., becomes the basis for further prediction and observation) is also likely to be complex, subtle and contingent. That complex definition, dependent at many turns upon ceteris paribus qualifications for application and meaning and subject to continued discussion regarding boundaries, is not a weakness, but a strength. The niche concept is similarly textured, yet also organizes many observations and permits both powerful, testable predictions and reasonable extrapolations to circumstances that are no longer observable. IMHO the open texture of such biological concepts is a strength, not a weakness.Voice Coil_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, Is that why you thought that the jigsaw-puzzle pieces determined the printed image? Well, if we go back to it, I was asking you the question of whether the pieces influenced the final picture or determined it. In the Dentonian theory of development, this distinction seems to be important. The genes that merely influence development of the eye are like the cheerleading squad and marching band. They urge the eye forward by singing "On, Wisconsin" or something. But the genes that determine, these are the genes that are out there on the field, carrying the ball, toting the barge, lifting the bale. Is that right?Nakashima_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

Mr Jerry, Behe is on record that naturalistic causes as now known did not account for changes over time. But what has that got to do with common descent? You've got me on that one. Naturalistic causes of change over time has nothing to do with common descent... ... or does it?Nakashima_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

jerry: So tigers and lions are not separate species
Lions and tigers can interbreed, but their offspring are often infertile and shortlived. Reproductive isolation is an important component of maintaining the integrity of individual species, but it is not the only consideration. There are too many exceptions for an ironclad rule.Zachriel_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

"What did “species” mean to you in these passages?" I tend to support the commonly accepted position for what a species is and that is, the inability to inter breed. I have read and watched videos on this topic from at least a dozen different sources. So it is not that I am unaware of what is at stake here. But given that I am on record that what many or even most call species (in wikipedia) are not really species but really variants. So tigers and lions are not separate species and neither are dogs and wolves and neither are cows and bisons. There are theoretically 300,000 beetle species but I doubt that is accurate. It is probably a whole lot less. The discussion here is about changes over time happening through a process called speciation and the extent of those changes. These changes could happen side by side as one variant of an insect likes one type of fruit tree and another likes another and the two trees are growing togehter. The two insect variants will not mate even though genetically they may represent identical populations. But are they really separate species? The discussion only gets to something of substance when you have separate populations changing dramatically from others and this can not happen if they can inter breed because gene flow would slow this down or stop it altogether. Thus, inter breeding is an essential issue but I am well aware of the problem with this definition. I would bet many of the species of bovids in the example I used can inter breed if not naturally then artificially. The purpose of such a mapping as in that example was to track changes over time as they spread through the various species of the family. The above passage you quoted was meant to show that an ID scientist would do exactly the same thing as any other scientist but his conclusions would be completely different. So what is ID. It is not the ability or inability to do science but what claims one makes with the findings of the research. I chose the name Professor Per because at the time Peter Olafsson was commenting a lot here and Per is a Swedish version of Peter. I was teasing Professor Olafsson who is Swedish that he secretly was an ID supporter which he immediately denied. It was a way of tweaking him to use the name Per as the secret ID scientist.jerry_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

"Unexplained in what way?" Just what it was and how it came into existence. Since there is no evidence of it, it is mythical. It is nothing more than a just told story. If it existed it must have had the eye machinery in its genome and just how did that happen. Well that is not completely correct. There must have been a wide range of organisms prior to the Cambrian because only a few phyla have organisms with eyes. So the original LUCA probably did not have eye machinery in its genome but one of its descendants did. But then again this has less going for it than the Odyssey and the Iliad. It is all a fairy tale and if anyone wants to hold that such organisms existed then so be it. But they must be honest and say it is WAS (wild assed speculation) and not science. So since you are honest, you must agree that it is WAS. ----------- "I wasn’t aware that in the Big Tent of ID, you were not sitting in the same pew as Drs Behe and Meyer, that accept deep time and common descent. Thank you for clarifying that for me." Your reading assessment is wanting. Who said I didn't accept deep time. You have a poor track record of assessing what is behind responses. Are you are looking for a crack in my responses so you can pin something on me. My responses are based on a template that has proved infallible so far. As far as deep time is concerned, it is just what can happen during deep time that is at issue. Maybe if I repeat something several times, you will start getting things right? Maybe I should give you my template so you can answer all your questions for yourself. Common descent is a conclusion, not a premise as it is for the Darwinist. If common descent is true then the real issue is the mechanisms for changes in the suite of species over time. Darwinist spout common descent like it is a given and that it is naturalistic and no such evidence exists to support that claim. So to put a damper on the enthusiasm for common descent If it happened there is little evidence that it happened totally through naturalistic causes. In fact the best inference is that it didn't. So I do not think Drs. Behe and Meyer differ from my point of view and I have read both. Behe is on record that naturalistic causes as now known did not account for changes over time. But what has that got to do with common descent? Meyers is on record that abiogenesis could not have happened by naturalistic causes. Hey we are in the same pew. I said a few days ago that even if you could work your way back naturally to the Cambrian (an extremely iffy proposition), common descent hits a wall there. There is no evidence that anything naturally happened to create the phyla. You are welcome to your faith but if you are honest, then you will admit it is based on faith. Will Provine admitted it, so be a big boy and fess up too. Now I think with your computer degrees you are smart enough to understand all this. Maybe with a little more reflection, you will start getting some things correctly.jerry_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

Jerry:
Oh, I forgot there is no accepted definition of what a species is so the use of the word is meaningless.
Earlier you said:
Make believe I am a scientist. Call me Professor Per. I secretly support ID. I do work mapping the genomes of bovid mammals because many of these animals are domesticated and I get support for this from the government. I find a lot of similarities between them and with the aid of a lot of colleagues who do not know my ID leanings, determine that nearly all members of the group could have descended from a population of bovids that existed 10-15 million years ago...all 130+ species developed by simple Darwinian processes that could be replicated much quicker artificially … …The environment, separation of sub populations, genetic processes and natural selection just narrowed the original gene pool and produced a bunch of new species.... …But my career is now in high gear and I am off to supervise a similar but much larger project on aves, a class and with much higher number of species.…
What did "species" mean to you in these passages? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/faq2-is-open-for-comment/#comment-304029Voice Coil_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, Limits? What analogy? What did you say your education background was again?Nakashima_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

Nakashima:
I’m quite aware of the limits of the analogy of a jigsaw puzzle of 2000 pieces to a developmental cascade of 2000 genes. Limits? What analogy?
Joseph_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

Mr CJYman, You do realize that you just stated that because of improbabilities associated with the aforementioned event, a future chosen target/goal and a filter associated with that goal needs to be brought in to even improve the chances for success. You sure are sounding a lot like an IDer. Is that what you were going for? Sorry that is what you got from this. What I intended was to show that all at once solving the problem - random pieces to coherent assembled picture - was improbable, but an iterated, population based approach could solve the problem over multiple iterations. I'm quite aware of the limits of the analogy of a jigsaw puzzle of 2000 pieces to a developmental cascade of 2000 genes.Nakashima_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

Nakashima:
Believe it or not, since it was my example, I was very aware of how I was using people as a stand-in for nature in the example.
Is that why you thought that the jigsaw-puzzle pieces determined the printed image?Joseph_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, And you didn’t understand that it was people who determine the image on jigsaw puzzles? Believe it or not, since it was my example, I was very aware of how I was using people as a stand-in for nature in the example. And your education background?Nakashima_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

Nakashima:
Education: I have a BS and MS in Computer Science. Erdos number of 5, but only based on a undergrad tech report. I design XML languages for a living.
And you didn't understand that it was people who determine the image on jigsaw puzzles? And you new jigsaw puzzle example- targeted. IOW you are totally clueless and digging the hole deeper and deeper. Sweet.Joseph_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

Mr Jerry, But selection pressures cannot operate on what is not there. It does not create alleles. It can only pressure some alleles to be expressed more often. Indeed, vacant niches allow more variants to survive. You might even say that the different are rewarded just for being different. It assumed there was a LUCA prior to the Cambrian that had all the information but then punts because if this mythical LUCA ever existed it is unexplained. Unexplained in what way? I wasn't aware that in the Big Tent of ID, you were not sitting in the same pew as Drs Behe and Meyer, that accept deep time and common descent. Thank you for clarifying that for me.Nakashima_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

Nakashima: "Yeah, that sounds totally improbable. So lets give pieces to 10,000 groups of 2,000 people, rank the finished puzzles by how much they look like the Mona Lisa," You do realize that you just stated that because of improbabilities associated with the aforementioned event, a future chosen target/goal and a filter associated with that goal needs to be brought in to even improve the chances for success. You sure are sounding a lot like an IDer. Is that what you were going for? However, even given a target, I'm not sure your scenario would work. How are you going to choose between two statistically random sets of graphical data and state that one looks closer to the Mona Lisa than the other? Nakashima: "and then do it again constraining the color choice of some of the best looking puzzles from the first 10,000. And then repeat that a few million times." It appears that the result would be an intelligent filtering for the colors necessary for the Mona Lisa painting but I don't see any reason to suppose that the Mona Lisa or anything even subjectively representing it would be the outcome. One way that your scenario would work is by applying a filter that froze correct pixels in place until the Mona Lisa "emerged" from the colorful noise. But of course, that would also reek of intelligent design, so I'm not sure I follow the point that you were originally intending, unless of course the rumors are true and you are coming to the dark side.CJYman_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

"Let me try to summarize your position, as I understand it from your last few messages. Ecological niches do not exist. Therefore there is no selection pressure to acquire resources in a vacant niche. Genomes do not constitute evidence of the evolution of the eye." Maybe we could start defining what a ecological niche is and see if it holds up as well as species does. As a starter to see what I believe, just follow what is known and shown. We have no problem with good science and I have watched many lectures by respected professors on ecologies as well as biology and evolution. Ecologies exist and most are very complex while some are incredibly complex. Ecologies change as the environment changes and individual population's allele frequencies change as this happens. And if you want to say selection pressure is operating, then so be it. Amen Brother. But selection pressures cannot operate on what is not there. It does not create alleles. It can only pressure some alleles to be expressed more often. And as this operates on all the organisms in the ecologies, complicated things take place but not the origin of complex novel capabilities. You conflate the two and assume because we deny the later we are denying everything. So deal with it that we are reasonable and as Joseph is constantly saying, "Show Me the Money." There is no genomic evidence for the evolution of the eye. It is all wishful thinking based on a premise that begs the question. It assumed there was a LUCA prior to the Cambrian that had all the information but then punts because if this mythical LUCA ever existed it is unexplained. So yes, I deny there exist any genomic evidence for the development of the eye. It is all A. another Darwinian fairy tale where the dog ate the evidence. B. a just told story that people like PZ Myers makes up to keep the faithful in line C. pure bulls__t. D. All the above Take your pick or choose all the above. They're all correct.jerry_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, Show me a jigsaw puzzle that is cut first and then each piece has an image printed on it- for example get 2000 people, give each a piece, and tell them to put something on it. Even though the pieces will, if properly coordinated, mechanically fit to form a whole sheet, do you think the image will be coherent? Yeah, that sounds totally improbable. So lets give pieces to 10,000 groups of 2,000 people, rank the finished puzzles by how much they look like the Mona Lisa, and then do it again constraining the color choice of some of the best looking puzzles from the first 10,000. And then repeat that a few million times. Sweet. Education: I have a BS and MS in Computer Science. Erdos number of 5, but only based on a undergrad tech report. I design XML languages for a living. Yourself?Nakashima_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

jerry: But they are all the same species.
That's irrelevant to your statement that niches are "Fantasy and Science Fiction." Niches are a real aspect of evolution, in this case explaining the adaptive radiation of Galápagos finches.
jerry: Oh, I forgot there is no accepted definition of what a species is so the use of the word is meaningless.
Actually, there are several scientifically accepted and related definitions of species. Some organisms are clearly separate species. And there are gray zones. The word "species" is no less meaningful than other terms that describe classes that have fuzzy or chaotic borders. In the case of Galápagos finches, hybridization is not uncommon, but the hybrids are rarely successful, which tends to limit gene flow between populations, and that means they retain their distinctive character traits. But again, it doesn't matter what you call the groupings, niches help explain the observed diversification.
jerry: One of my nieces only eats broccoli
Humans interbreed readily and produce viable offspring. Humans are a single species under any of the scientifically accepted definitions of species.Zachriel_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

No, not rabbits!Joseph_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 10 Next