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

"they have evolved to occupy the niches normally occupied by warblers, grosbeaks, blackbirds, ground finches, and woodpeckers, diversifying to eat seeds, flowers, insects, leaves, even blood." But they are all the same species. Oh, I forgot there is no accepted definition of what a species is so the use of the word is meaningless. Just what is the meaning of the word "is." So we have the flower eating niche, the leaf eating niche, the seed eating niche, the insect eating niche. We even have the blood eating niche. Well I guess those vampires have been vanquished from the Galapagos. One of my nieces only eats broccoli and then just the fuzzy tops while the other niece eats spinach. So if another child is born, those two niece niches have been taken. A shame, the new child will have to occupy a less nutritious niche. Oh well, he/she may have to force the siblings out to get at the nutritious food. Maybe if we introduce a couple rabbits, we will see what niches is all about.jerry_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

Nakashima:
If I have a 2000 piece jigsaw puzzle, is the image printed on each piece influencing the final assembled picture or determining it?
Jigsaw puzzles have all the information put on them (that printed image) when the medium is whole and then it is cut up. And it takes a great deal of agency involvement to do all of that. 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? The point being is that the intial agency involvement DETERMINED what the printed image of the jigsaw puzzle would be- in your "example". How the pieces are put together influences the final product. That you were unable to understand that is totally sweet. What is your education level?Joseph_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, If you can't tell me what Dr Denton was flapping about, how can I give you an example? What is the difference between influence and determine to your little tin god? If I have a 2000 piece jigsaw puzzle, is the image printed on each piece influencing the final assembled picture or determining it? Can you answer that? No. Sweet.Nakashima_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

Zachriel:
A classic example of adaptive radiation are the Galápagos finches (tanagers). Your "classic example" supports the YEC model of "variation within a Kind". Why is it that all evos can pull out are examples that support baraminology?
Joseph_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

Nakashima, Quote any experiment that demonstrates that genes determine the type of eye. You can't. IOW YOU don't have any evidence. Why do you think that your ignorance is meaningful discourse?Joseph_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, Or you could buy a dictionary and actually learn the differences between “influence” and “determine”- although that may not help as it appears you can’t even do that much. IOW, when the Dr Denton's flap, you don't know what it means. Butt you quote it anyway. Sweet. I'm not the one hiding behind a distinction between 'influence' and 'determine' quoted out of a holy book. You are. So quote Dr Denton's experiment showing which genes influnce the eye and which genes determine the eye. You can't. IOW, you have no evidence.Nakashima_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

A classic example of adaptive radiation are the Galápagos finches (tanagers). They descendend from an immigrant population that arrived from South America to the Galápagos Islands just a few million years ago. Since then, they have evolved to occupy the niches normally occupied by warblers, grosbeaks, blackbirds, ground finches, and woodpeckers, diversifying to eat seeds, flowers, insects, leaves, even blood. Genomic data supports common descent of Galápagos finches, and changes to specific genes that affect beak morphology have been identified. - Darwin, C. R. ed. 1841. Birds Part 3 of The zoology of the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle. by John Gould. Edited and superintended by Charles Darwin. London: Smith Elder and Co. Sato et al., Phylogeny of Darwin’s finches as revealed by mtDNA sequences, PNAS 1998. Abzhanov et al., Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin's Finches, Science 2004.Zachriel_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

Mr Jerry, 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.Nakashima_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

Nakashima:
You will have to interpret that little tin god Dr Denton for me, I don’t know what distinguishes ‘influence’ and ‘determine’ in his masterpiece.
You have to read it first- then perhaps even read the references. But before that you have to pull your head out of your arse, otherwise there isn't anything that can help you. Or you could buy a dictionary and actually learn the differences between "influence" and "determine"- although that may not help as it appears you can't even do that much.Joseph_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

"I’m really unclear why this idea that strong selection pressure can foster innovation in open niches and conservatism in occupied niches is difficult for you. I also think the term I used at first, closed niche, is inappropriate and occupied niche is better." Because it is pure bulls__t. I told you I am a prisoner of reason and truth. So it is impossible for me to acquiesce to something made up to cover one's rear end in a discussion when there is no evidence it ever happened. But don't let a little thing like that get in your way. Sounds good in an Alice in Wonderland fantasy science fiction story so let's get it in a textbook or a science study on evolutionary biology. Oh, well, we know the Darwinist don't have any real world information so BS is the currency in the fantasy land they live in. Are niches part of the latest issue of Fantasy and Science Fiction? I am wondering why the sudden rush to find yourself a niche.jerry_{November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT}

Mr Jerry, Actually, I saw on the species thread that 45,500 out of 58,000 vertebrate species fossilize poorly, so I'm not sure why you would bring up such a poor argument here. I don't hold that there is any 'must' holding back a primitive eyed animal. That would be teleology, second floor, next to sporting goods. Plenty of primitive eyed animals enjoyed rapid radiation and diversification - in the Cambrian. All of us visually well endowed vertebrates, even the ones that don't fossilize particularly well, are their grandchildren. As you point out, a primitive eyed animal could still find a set of open niches after an extinction event - a meteor impact, or anthropogenic global warming perhaps. But if the species has been getting along fine without more advanced eyes in its current niche, any member that starts to invest time and energy building better eyes is wasting those scarce resources and will be out competed in its niche. If it shifts to a new niche another species is probably already there. I'm really unclear why this idea that strong selection pressure can foster innovation in open niches and conservatism in occupied niches is difficult for you. I also think the term I used at first, closed niche, is inappropriate and occupied niche is better. And yes. organisms can destroy their own niche. Medea Hypothesis, anyone? Bueller?Nakashima_{November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT}

"I’m glad to hear that you don’t like teleological arguments, but a closed niche is not such an argument. If a niche is occupied, full to capacity with living things eating all the available food, any invader had better be better than the incumbents. Being better than their own ancestors isn’t enough. It is the same answer as why we don’t see abiogenesis happening regularly." A lot of non sequiturs here but that is par for the course. It is what we deal with here all the time. I love teleological arguments. It is the only thing that explains everything. A closed niche is bulls__t. There are no closed niches as ecologies are changing all the time and can be destroyed in a jiffy when the environment changes. The teleological argument is the best I have seen for why ecologies work. Otherwise parts of it will destroy it and eventually itself because as you say there wouldn't be any looking forward. Like Dirty Harry said, "An organism has got to know its limitations." So you really like the dog ate the evidence argument and I was just kidding when I use it. Those big bad organisms just eating the evidence away all the time so those robots who worship Darwin cannot find it. Poor befuddled darwinbots. But wait didn't you see on the species thread, that most vertebrates fossilized so the dogs forgot a few. How inconsiderate of them. You still haven't answered the question why the single photo sensitive cell must remain that way. Is getting more photocells an invitation to someone else's lunch? Is there an enforcer to make sure that these cells do not get too uppity. I shouldn't expect any logic as answers, only blind obedience to a mind numbing philosophy. And I am a person who believes that natural process rule most of the world including the biology world. It is just the initial and boundary conditions that have to be tweaked to make it self running. Sort of like the Rendezvous with Rama series.jerry_{November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, Does crystallin determine what type of eye is being formed? You will have to interpret that little tin god Dr Denton for me, I don't know what distinguishes 'influence' and 'determine' in his masterpiece.Nakashima_{November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

Is the gene that codes for crystallin ‘influencing’ the eye or ‘determining’ the eye?
Does crystallin determine what type of eye is being formed?
Is the gene that codes for rhodopsin ‘infuencing’ the eye or ‘determining’ the eye?
Does rhodopsin determine what type of eye is being formed? Are you still smoking pixie dust? You are supposed to just snort the stuff...Joseph_{November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

Nakashima:
There is no evidence for anything else holding these instructions.
You are missing the point. The genes do not determine the form- they just aid in making it. Learn some science? What do you have? What is your evidence that genes determine form? And what was the "Alternberg 16" discussing if not the fact that the theory of evolution lacks a "theory of form"? Far from worshipping Denton I am going by the available data. But anyways I am very interested in learning about fruit fly genes- and roughly how long do you think it took blind and unguided processes to put together 2000 genes and controllers just for a fruit fly eye? BTW no one knows what determines form- no one. Meaning you don't have any evidence. Go figure...Joseph_{November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, I said the DNA is the hardware. It is part of what carries out the instructions- software. There is no evidence for anything else holding these instructions. IOW, no pixie dust. Genes are material. IOW, get out of your Dr Denton's and learn some science. "As Dr Denton stated", now you worship that little tin god Dr Denton? Is the gene that codes for crystallin 'influencing' the eye or 'determining' the eye? Is the gene that codes for rhodopsin 'infuencing' the eye or 'determining' the eye? Tell me Joe. Interpret the words of Dr Denton for me. Has Dr Denton done an experiment where he takes away all the genes that merely 'influence' the eye, and found what it is that actually 'determines' the eye. No. IOW, you have no evidence.Nakashima_{November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

Nakashima:
The assembler is the ribosome, and it can certainly influence the protein they are assembling by misreading the design written in the mRNA.
Influence, yes. Determine, no. IOW you just supported my claim. Thanks. Also ribosomes are evidence of design. Once again you start with that which needs explaining in the first place. Sweet.
Scientists do, how do you think they have learned so much? Guess what they learned? Eyes are built of protein from instructions encoded in DNA! Not instructions encoded in elan vital or pixie dust.
It appears you are smoking too much pixie dust- however- What eyes are built of is not what determines the type of eye. I said the DNA is the hardware. It is part of what carries out the instructions- software. For example the resistors, capacitors, coils, ICs, chassis, power supply with all of its varying components- they do not determine what is being made. They can go into a PC, a child's toy, a radio, a TV.Joseph_{November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

Mr Jerry, I'm glad to hear that you don't like teleological arguments, but a closed niche is not such an argument. If a niche is occupied, full to capacity with living things eating all the available food, any invader had better be better than the incumbents. Being better than their own ancestors isn't enough. It is the same answer as why we don't see abiogenesis happening regularly.Nakashima_{November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

Ah, the niche argument. I love the egalitarian Darwinists and their odd stances. I am sorry poor optically sensitive spot, but you must stay the way you are for eternity. You see my nephew applied for the spot and being that he is my nephew, it is his. You will have to respect the class system and we want no uppity behavior from you such as evolution to a more sensitive light spot. Don't get any pretenses that you too will be able to see some day. You see that spot was taken long ago. I am a believer in the entrepreneurial system or that the poor sensitive little spot too can achieve and reach high levels of accomplishment. It is not a fixed pie especially with all those mass extinctions along the way. So I am an anti nicher. It is so unfair not to let all the species be all that they can be.jerry_{November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, 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. Your Dr Denton's in a twist with that analogy. The assembler is the ribosome, and it can certainly influence the protein they are assembling by misreading the design written in the mRNA. 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. Scientists do, how do you think they have learned so much? Guess what they learned? Eyes are built of protein from instructions encoded in DNA! Not instructions encoded in elan vital or pixie dust.Nakashima_{November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

Mr Jerry, Like you, I am a science junkie. What I like so much about UD is what the discussions lead me to learn. I don't find anything ironic in the idea that selection pressure can acheive different effects in different contexts. In an open niche it causes rapid radiation and diversity, in a closed niche, conservation. When I asked, 'compared to what?', I meant to ask what is your expected level of change and why do expect that level. Do you think animal eyes should have evolved to be Raman spectroscopes by now? Why? Has the amount of light or its quality changed very much in 500 million years? I'm glad we share the view that entwining religious and scientific positions is a weakness. And thank you for your expectation that I would research my position before stating it. I will try to live up to this standard.Nakashima_{November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

Also master control genes are evidence for ID...Joseph_{November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

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.Joseph_{November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

Nakashima, How can we test the premise that eyes/ vision systems evolved from a population or populations that didn't have either? I ask because I know that the ONLY "evidence" for said evolution is that we observe varying complexities of eyes/ vision systems and we think we "know" that the original populations of single-celled organisms didn't have either and we "know" everything evolved from them.Joseph_{November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

Voice Coil, DNA may influence development but it does not determine it. No one knows where the information for form or type resides. And no one has pinpointed it as being the DNA. Sure that may be many people's guess but that is something else entirely. This is all in geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti's book "Why is a Fly Not a Horse?".Joseph_{November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

Mr Nakashima (#70) Thank you very much for the article. I see that not only mammals and birds, but salamanders are capable of motion anticipation, so (contrary to my proposal in #43) this capacity looks like a very poor litmus test for sentience, after all. Also, the fact that motion anticipation occurs in the retina, rather than the cortex, seems to preclude a high-order cognitive explanation of the behavior. The article which you linked to describes a very interesting and well thought-out piece of research. Thank you once again.vjtorley_{November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Mr Vjtorley, I closed my comment to quickly, here is a brief note on anticipation processing in the retina.Nakashima_{November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

"Vision is so useful that selection pressure for good vision is very strong. The single fact that good vision helps you survive explains its rapid development, its diversity, and its conservation." Doesn't the irony of that statement get through to you. You say only once but the selection pressure is strong. And in 500 million years no new systems but the pressure is strong. Look in the mirror and say that with a straight face. "Not much evolution – compared to what?" I think you have answered your own question. A tweak compared to a truly remarkable system in case you still don't get it. Someone said recently that it was a cascade of about 2000 proteins. Last time I checked that was pretty high up on the remarkable scale. And if you decide to say it is not so remarkable, then why only once. And by the way many believe it happened more than once. But I believe PZ sees the internal inconsistencies in that stance and comes down on the "once" scenario for philosophical reasons. "you’ve warned us previously not to take your emphatic statements too seriously" Yes, by pushing people like you and Hazel and others here with taunts for some truth, maybe we will learn something because what we nearly always get is condescension, disdain, deflection and double talk (I was going to use disrespect instead of condescension to make it all "d's" but condescension is more appropriate.) You see it makes no difference to me whether naturalistic evolution is the answer for everything or not. That is what I believed 10 years ago when I got curious, I am a science junkie, and went to a conference here in New York on ID and listened to what they had to say. Dembski and Behe were there and several others and I was impressed by their logic. That is what started me on the trail to here. It was a selection event. The pressures of truth put me on a different developmental path. I evolved. I am a prisoner of logic and truth. So, here I stand, I can do no other. What didn't change one iota was my religious beliefs so when people here try to intertwine the two, I know exactly what they are doing. They are arguing from weakness and the sad thing is they know it and continue to do it while keeping their condescending attitude. A truly astonishing phenomenon. PS - I was right when I told Hazel that Nakashima was out somewhere researching eye evolution. Keep the faith.jerry_{November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

Mr Vjtorley, Sorry I haven't read your referenced paper yet to see what evidence is adduced that frogs don't anticipate motion. However, I can understand why it may not be necessary for a small animal to do so. However however, if they did need to do so, pretty simple motion detection processing in the retina itself would allow them to. As an example, take a string of 'b' for background and 'F' for the moving Fly. So at one moment the frog sees bbbbbFFFbbbbb and at the next bbbbbbFFFbbbb and at the next bbbbbbbFFFbbb These together give a signal ,,,,,-+,-+,,, where ',' means no change from the previous moment, '+' means a change from the previous moment, and '-' means a change in the antepenultimate moment, now decaying to no change. This signal gives a clear message about the Fly's anticipated place in the next moment. The bottom line is that visual anticipation can be built cheaply. It is easy to imagine a frog that sees (in terms of the signal sent to its brain) ,,,,,,,,!,!,, In other words, the frog doesn't actually see the world as it is, the frog sees the world as it will be a moment in the future.Nakashima_{November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Hazel (#62) You write:
What kind of an eye, for instance, did Wiwaxia or Laggania have?
According to Wikipedia article on Wiwaxia , the answer is: none:
Since there is no sign of eyes or tentacles, Wiwaxia may have relied mainly on chemical senses such as smell and taste.
As for Laggania, you can find out more about its eyes at these sites: Laggania cambria (see http://www.dinocasts.com/prod_productDetails.asp?ProductId=751 for a model and description), The Anomalocaris Homepage and Anomalocarids in Art . From what I gather, Laggania had short stalked eyes, set behind its mouth, leading most experts to believe that it was a filter feeder rather than a hunter. It has been called the baleen whale of the Cambrian. However, only one or two specimens have been discovered to date. I hope that helps.vjtorley_{November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next