Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

In other words, phylogenetic reconstruction is sheer fantasy …

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here’s some research done 100 miles down the road from me. Note the sentence highlighted. The actual phylogenies here were experimentally known and yet standard evolutionary theory drew completely wrong conclusions. Oh, but it was a small population, small genomes, and intense selection pressure. Spare me.

“Exceptional Convergent Evolution in a Virus”
Bull JJ, Badgett MR, Wichman HA, Huelsenbeck JP, Hillis DM, Gulati A, Ho C, Molineux IJ.
Department of Zoology, Institute of Cellular and Molecular Biology, University of Texas, Austin 78712, USA. bull@bull.zo.utexas.edu

Replicate lineages of the bacteriophage phiX 174 adapted to growth at high temperature on either of two hosts exhibited high rates of identical, independent substitutions. Typically, a dozen or more substitutions accumulated in the 5.4-kilobase genome during propagation. Across the entire data set of nine lineages, 119 independent substitutions occurred at 68 nucleotide sites. Over half of these substitutions, accounting for one third of the sites, were identical with substitutions in other lineages. Some convergent substitutions were specific to the host used for phage propagation, but others occurred across both hosts. Continued adaptation of an evolved phage at high temperature, but on the other host, led to additional changes that included reversions of previous substitutions. Phylogenetic reconstruction using the complete genome sequence not only failed to recover the correct evolutionary history because of these convergent changes, but the true history was rejected as being a significantly inferior fit to the data. Replicate lineages subjected to similar environmental challenges showed similar rates of substitution and similar rates of fitness improvement across corresponding times of adaptation. Substitution rates and fitness improvements were higher during the initial period of adaptation than during a later period, except when the host was changed.

PMID: 9409816 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Comments
tribune7:
The bees and beavers wouldn’t be designers with this definition in the same sense that a laserprinter wouldn’t be a designer when it prints out a colored chart. The hives and dams would be built according to instinct rather than thought and desire.
Any living organism has the ability to be a designer. "Instinct" is just a word for "we don't know". Nature, operating freely would not and could not build a beaver dam. Nature, operating freely would not and could not build a bee-hive nor a termite mound. tribune7- have you read "Nature, Design and Science" by Del Ratzsch? You should.Joseph
April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
Resolution (policy debate):
In policy debate, a resolution or topic is a normative statement which the affirmative team affirms and the negative team negates.
In this sense "resolved" would mean to separate- divide into two distinct groups. As in there are (at least) two sides to every issue. In that sense then every issue brought up for debate is "resolved".Joseph
April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
There is no such thing as a "fair debate." Debates are meant never to be resolved. That is why they always start off with the words - "Resolved that etc, etc." I defy anyone, here or elsewhere, to name a single issue, scientific or otherwise that was ever "resolved" through "debate." I think 24 hours ought to prove sufficient. I'll check back tomorrow morning, supremely confident there will be no answer.JohnADavison
April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
Are the honeycombs of bees deigned? do termites plan their mounds? Do beavers plan their dams?
So I take it that you did NOT read Del's book. I say that because if you had vread it you would NOT be asking those questions. So is arguing from ignorance the best you can do?Joseph
April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
womanatwell--I think a problem in using the term “design” in the Intelligent Design movement is that for believers, all things are designed ID is a scientific methodology, and it is a rather limited one. It is incapable of detecting design in all things. It is also falsifiable, and if it should be falsified it shouldn't affect your faith.tribune7
April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
Alan, sorry to hear about your friend. OK, assuming design exists, would it have unique traits? Sure. It's a word we use successfully in communication and it's a concept we use internally to help us understand life. Are these traits objectively describable? There is no reason to think they wouldn't be. Does ID succeed in describing them? That's a fair debate. People design things. So I know what human design is. I don’t know if intelligent beings exist elsewhere in the universe. I don’t know if they design things and have no idea what these things might look like or do. I can only imagine in extrapolating from human experience. You believe in evolution. Presumably that means you see Man as having naturally evolved the ability to design. Presumably that would mean that you leave open the possibility of some other life form --an earthly one -- also acquiring such an ability. Which means it would be beneficial to seek an objective means of determining design. There is nothing wrong with using human experience as a starting point. Are the honeycombs of bees deigned? do termites plan their mounds? Do beavers plan their dams? ID would not say yes. Of course it wouldn't say yes to the parquet floor of the Boston Gardens. The examples are patterns which are an indication of design. Their complexities, however, do not reach such a level that you could ascertain it. It is hard for me to see what the concept of design means without qualifying it in some way. Can you define design in the abstract? I gave this one to Jerry: a designed object or event is one that came into existence through desire guided by thought That would mean design is thought guiding desire which would not become evident until action. The bees and beavers wouldn't be designers with this definition in the same sense that a laserprinter wouldn't be a designer when it prints out a colored chart. The hives and dams would be built according to instinct rather than thought and desire.tribune7
April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
PS: WTW: pardon, one may as a worldview accept that design is the foundation of reality. That is a different project (and under a different head, philosophy) from the scientific case that per signs of intelligence, design is empirically detectable on evidence, for certain important cases. [Christians inclined to support ID tend to see that say Jn 1, Ac 17, Rom 1 - 2, Col 1 etc expect that the design of the universe and specific items in by him who is Reason Himself it will be empirically evident and intelligible to the eye of reason, to a point where one has to resist or even suppress the conclusion if one finds it uncomfortable to one's worldview. (Thus, at these points the Christian worldview is subject to empirical test and potential falsification. You may find the FAQ's 1 - 8 helpful, esp when they deal with Logos theology.)]kairosfocus
April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT
UB, 186:
ID does not posit broken laws of physics - it posits that based upon the evidence 1) the only [directly] known cause for the observed effects is agency, and 2) that neither chance nor necessity have ever been observed creating these effects. This is not a trivial distinction; these effects are clearly defined, just as the glaring dissimilarity between a crystal and a compact disc. This leads to two straigtforward questions: Can a compact disc come about by “natural” causes? Are there any laws of nature broken by the existence of a compact disc?
Excellent summary. Let us now cf. Mr Fox -- hope your friend turns out okay -- at 194:
People design things. So I know what human design is. I don’t know if intelligent beings exist elsewhere in the universe. I don’t know if they design things and have no idea what these things might look like or do. I can only imagine in extrapolating from human experience.
1 --> Now, of course, that we are familiar with human intelligent designers and their artifacts immediately means that we can identify major characteristics of what we mean when we use the terms intelligence, design and artifacts, etc. (Cf a good dictionary.) 2 --> Thus, we have identified a cluster of concepts, and we have identified concrete exemplars; i.e. what we need to identify other instances [and, perhaps counter-instances] on a family resemblance basis; and, key example and close family resemblance thereto is legitimate as a definition; indeed it is the basis for other definitions. (Cf, for instance how we have to deal with life, the subject matter of biology: we cannot put together a neat and clean one size fits all precising necessary and sufficient conditions or genus-difference definition. Denotative or taxonomical definition and/or quantification are not necessary conditions of science. So let us not indulge selective hyperskepticism.) 3 --> that also grounds ideas like the explanatory filter, which give decision rules for dealing with cases: mechanical necessity gives rise to low-contingency regularities of nature, undirected stochastic contingency is distinguishable form directed and purposeful contingency. the criteria of specification, functionality and complexity are relevant to these and may be quantified. 4 --> From this, we have a well tested rule: functionally specific complex information [cf FSC etc] is a known artifact of agency and on inductive reasoning, we see that in every known case, its source is intelligence. Further, we see that stochastic processes will be overwhelmed by the search space challenge to arrive at shores of islands of function, absent intelligent direction. [Indeed that is the key point of failure of the Weasel program. (Cf my summary discussion here that now joins my always linked.)] 5 --> Someone has recently challenged the idea that functionality exists in isolated islands (and archipelagos) in large config spaces. Let that one do the experiment of trying to compose a functioning algorithm and program by random chance, or of trying to improve it substantially (more than 1,000 bits worth of new code) by random variation of its instructions. 6 --> Nor, do we know that humans exhaust the list of intelligent designers. 7 --> Nor, do we know that such candidate designers are confined to being embodied within the cosmos. (Indeed, we have a contingent, complex, massively fine-tuned cosmos that is indeed on an island of local function in the parameter space of physics, and it is credibly contingent, thus at least possibly designed by an intelligence that is extracosmic.) 8 --> What we do know is that on principles of inductive reasoning, we have good and reliable signs of intelligent design. So -- pace selectively hyperskeptical objections -- we are entitled and well-warranted to infer inductively from such signs to the signified. 9 --> And, such signs can therefore be used to support the inference that such an agent is/was present, even where we have no other indication. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
I think a problem in using the term “design” in the Intelligent Design movement is that for believers, all things are designed (I am taking for granted that design is part of creation). Del Ratzsch describes a hundred-meter, perfect titanium cube on Mars (Nature, Design and Science, p12). He says we would not think it was “natural,” using that as an example of an obvious artifact, implying design. However, what he misses is that the planet Mars is also designed: it is designed as a planet. The discovery of fine-tuned physical constants which make the universe the way it is has given us the idea of the Anthropic Principle. The laws of the universe are designed. Even random movements of molecules are a necessary part of the design of the world, very useful in things like the atmosphere and diffusion. The opposite of design, like the opposite of Creation, is not randomness but nothingness. I believe God gives us the innate ability to sense design, and also the revelation in the Bible that He made all things. The ID movement is important in showing the discrepancy between chemical and physical laws acting on molecules and the facts of biological laws. Though some may be confused by the differences, they do exist. Molecules are subject to chemical and physical laws, not biological laws like neo-Darwinian selection. You will not (or should not) find “survival of the fittest” in any index of a chemistry book. The probabilities of usable combinations of atoms are sources of information for ID Theory.womanatwell
April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT
sparc in #190. In forms capable of vegetative growth and reproduction, the individual becomes a vague entity, but even there I know of no proven instance of true speciation occurring through those means. Neither does anyone else as far as I know. I insist that all real evolution was through instantaneous events exactly as Otto Schindewolf insisted. While there have been "stepping stones" there have been no gradual transformations of one species or taxon to another. To claim otherwise as the Darwinians still insist is a scandal. Furthermore, I see no evidence that there remains a single extant organism capable of leaving descendents significantly different than itself. In short - "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. Davison That does not mean that one could not hy experimental intervention achieve that which Nature can no longer manage to bring about. In 2004 I published my paper "Is Evolution Finished?" available on the side bar here at Uncommon Descent. On my weblog I have rearranged the words in the thread "Evolution is finished." My challenge to the Darwinian fantasy has remained unanswered both in the professional literature and on internet forums. It has always been the habit of Darwinians to pretend they have no critics. That won't wash any more. They are finished! I hope this helps.JohnADavison
April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT
So to get to the point, we agree that design exists, right?
For the purpose of argument, yes.Alan Fox
April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PDT
You seem to be saying design exists and you describe it then you say you can’t agree that it exists until I tell you what it is despite it being something you apparently know.
People design things. So I know what human design is. I don't know if intelligent beings exist elsewhere in the universe. I don't know if they design things and have no idea what these things might look like or do. I can only imagine in extrapolating from human experience. Are the honeycombs of bees deigned? do termites plan their mounds? Do beavers plan their dams? It is hard for me to see what the concept of design means without qualifying it in some way. Can you define design in the abstract? So to get to the point, we agree that design exists, right?Alan Fox
April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT
Alan, did you miss this (164)?
Life intervened. A friend crashed her car, in hospital , pets to sort out. Will try find time later to respond.Alan Fox
April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT
At first I didn’t think it would be. It has in it the phrase, “according to a plan.” I initially thought you might get yourself into trouble in this debate because you will be asked for the plan. The one problem I would have with the definition is in its use of synonyms to define each other i.e. "plan" and "design". I toyed with "a designed object or event is one that came into existence through desire guided by thought" but I felt safer with the dictionary one. Not having the plan doesn't make design any less real. Remember with design detection, the expectation is that one won't have the plan in front of him. The goal is to determine design without the plan. Was the fire arson or accident? Is the noise signal or static? etc. However, for some other non evolutionary items, the plan underlying the design would not be so obvious. Such as a sculpture or a painting or an arrow head or a set of tools where the only plan was in someone’s mind and never took physical shape. Remember the definition (or reality) of design is not the ID process. All those things are designed as per the definition. Would the hyper-rigorous ID method be able to detect design in them? Maybe not.tribune7
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT
tribune7, "to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : devise, contrive" Your definition may be useful for the evolution debate. At first I didn't think it would be. It has in it the phrase, "according to a plan." I initially thought you might get yourself into trouble in this debate because you will be asked for the plan. However, there is a plan and the plan is the coding part of the DNA. So there is in fact a physical plan. No where else in the world except life and human activity is there such a plan However, for some other non evolutionary items, the plan underlying the design would not be so obvious. Such as a sculpture or a painting or an arrow head or a set of tools where the only plan was in someone's mind and never took physical shape. And to use this definition to assess something found in the world as either design or not may be problematic in such cases.jerry
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
JAD:
Is the adult organism capable of any further differentiation? No, is my answer.
What about dichogamy? You may ask Nemo if you should find him. What about budding in Hydra What about adult plants? Isn't there something like vegetative reproduction, rhizomes, stolons, tubers, etc.?sparc
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT
Upright Biped Thanks for the lengthy reply. You say: The paper makes the point that algorithmic instruction are only known to exists by means of an agent, and such instructions have never in the history of science been caused by “nature” (as you say it) acting without agency input. So the question becomes: On what grounds do we justify ignoring agency as a natural force today? Yes, I understood the point of the paper. As I said, I see no evidence in it for I.D. Let me explain. 12,000 years ago, the cavemen Iconofid and Upright Biped are sitting by the fire near the mouth of their cave, watching "fire" erupting from a volcano on the horizon during a storm. A bolt of lightning strikes a tree just a few hundred yards away, and it bursts into flames. "I wonder what fire is, and where it comes from", Iconofid muses. "Well", says Upright the Wise, "the only times we know the source of fire is when we make it, so it's reasonable to assume that the volcano fire and the lightning fire are the products of other agents." And so great was the influence of this early philosopher and others like him that still to this day there are people who make offerings to volcano gods (Bali), and the gods of lightning are renowned far and wide. If this caveman had a strong argument, then so do the authors of your paper, Upright the Wise. ID does not posit broken laws of physics - it posits that based upon the evidence 1) the only known cause for the observed effects is agency, and 2) that neither chance nor necessity have ever been observed creating these effects. This is not a trivial distinction; these effects are clearly defined, just as the glaring dissimilarity between a crystal and a compact disc. This leads to two straightforward questions: Can a compact disc come about by “natural” causes? Are there any laws of nature broken by the existence of a compact disc? None whatsoever. A few billion years of evolution in negative entropy could certainly produce creatures that could make them, for example. This is simply a return to the failed God of the Unknown argument. Again, do you think science is actually expecting an unknown property of chance to come forth and explain why formerly inanimate chemicals would self-organize into three-dimensional energy-metabolizing structures driven by highly-coordinated information processing systems that spontaneously initiate the recording of their existence by means of a conventional code of digital information that is proof-read and error-corrected but is not contingent on material need? There is no "unknown property" required. Think of it like cosmologists figuring out how the solar system formed over the last century or so. They didn't know how it happened, now they pretty much do. As for your characterization of what's at the base of modern organisms, that would have to be the result of a lengthy evolutionary process. There's absolutely nothing to prevent evolutionary processes increasing complexity and what you call information. I'm not saying anything that I couldn't get thousands of physicists, biologists and chemists to agree with. And they certainly wouldn't all share the same philosophy, religion or ideology. It’s a stance that cannot withhold the force of molecular biology. Perhaps you should spend more time communicating with molecular biologists and less time with people who think molecules are computer components. I'd be genuinely interested to know when you would predict the downfall of methodological naturalism, and what folks around here call "materialism" in science. I can find you quotes from people predicting the downfall of "Darwinism" from the late nineteenth century onwards. Do you think it's a matter of years, or decades? (A question for all I.D.ers, not just UB). Cheers.iconofid
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
I am not sure design has a hard definition. Does anyone have one? This works for me: 1: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : devise, contrivetribune7
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
----Upright Biped: "If you say “yes”, then please provide some conceptual thoughts about what this might be - or, simply admit to an argumentative dependence on the God of the Unknown and all of its ideological baggage." Yes, indeed. If those wedded to the idea that naturalistic forces can actually create information or its equivalent, they should at least be able to conceive of some imaginative scenario whereby such things are possible.StephenB
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
Icon, Firstly, let me thank you for actually trying to address the evidence - it is a rarity.
"I don’t disagree with Trevors and Abel that there are gaps in our knowledge. I see nothing in the paper that shows that nature cannot produce “algorithmic instruction”.
The paper makes the point that algorithmic instruction are only known to exists by means of an agent, and such instructions have never in the history of science been caused by “nature” (as you say it) acting without agency input. So the question becomes: On what grounds do we justify ignoring agency as a natural force today?
Why does it require an unknown force for chemical evolution to produce “FSC”? What laws of physics would that process break?
ID does not posit broken laws of physics - it posits that based upon the evidence 1) the only known cause for the observed effects is agency, and 2) that neither chance nor necessity have ever been observed creating these effects. This is not a trivial distinction; these effects are clearly defined, just as the glaring dissimilarity between a crystal and a compact disc. This leads to two straigtforward questions: Can a compact disc come about by “natural” causes? Are there any laws of nature broken by the existence of a compact disc?
What is unknown is the chemistry of the OOL, and the chemistry of the evolution of the genetic code.
This is simply a return to the failed God of the Unknown argument. Again, do you think science is actually expecting an unknown property of chance to come forth and explain why formerly inanimate chemicals would self-organize into three-dimensional energy-metabolizing structures driven by highly-coordinated information processing systems that spontaneously initiate the recording of their existence by means of a conventional code of digital information that is proof-read and error-corrected but is not contingent on material need? Will neutrinos explain the empirically detectable drive for survival?
There are enormous gaps in our knowledge of biology all over the place. It’s in its infancy, compared to what could be known. But it doesn’t require any unknown forces so far as I know. Isn’t that your claim rather than mine?
Again, ID does not make claims for unknown forces, to the contrary, ID claims that the cause of the observable effects in nucleic sequencing (and other aspects of biology) is very well known - it is the result of an Agent. What ID cannot say is who/what the Agent is. Why? Because ID appropriately stops at the line of what is knowable by the evidence itself. Some may find this lacking, but it is completely harmonious with what is science is supposed to be. As an empirically-based program, what else could it do?
Are Trevors and Abel suggesting that the sophisticated organization that empirical observation tells us is required in intelligent designers cannot come about naturally? Or just that we don’t yet know the full story of how it could happen?
This is once again an appeal to the God of the Unknown. Ask yourself (once again) is science expecting to discover the explanation for life within an unknown property of chance and necessity? If you say “yes”, then please provide some conceptual thoughts about what this might be - or, simply admit to an argumentative dependence on the God of the Unknown and all of its ideological baggage. Of course the answer is NO, science is not expecting this. It’s a shell game providing blind support to an ideological priori that was established long before the advent of molecular biology. It’s a stance that cannot withhold the force of molecular biology. It’s a stance that is becoming more and more untenable. To be clear, there is a pattern that has emerged; the more we know, the less we can explain. Now, ask yourself a manifest question. Under what conditions could such a pattern exists - this relationship between vastly increased technical knowledge and a dwindling applicability of ideological assumptions (as clearly evidenced by the continuous expansion and rewriting of those assumptions). I suggest this pattern exist because the priori assumptions were established without technical merit. We have often been our own fools, the advent of the microsope was hardly the end of it.
If I.D. already has a measured way of detecting design, how soon will we see a general agreement amongst I.D.ers on what evolves naturally, and what is designed? Surely all brains of all species must be designed considering the amount of species specific complex information they seem to contain?
This is a point in another long post where the discussion starts to drift off into the weeds. If one understands that the difference between inanimate material and functioning living tissue is the prescribed instructions written into nucleic sequencing, then why would I think a big toe is a result of that information, but a gall bladder is not?
I’ll have a look at the research on sequencing of nucleic acids when I’ve got time, to show that I’m taking I.D. arguments seriously.
Thank you.Upright BiPed
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
I am not sure design has a hard definition. Does anyone have one? We use it here mainly to indicate that some entities were the result of purposeful activity. We can point to human activity and various animals and some of their activity and we know what are the elements of design by the results of this activity. No one would point to non life and things produced by nature and call it design even though we have all seen various things in nature that we say make nice designs because of the order and the arrangement of the various parts. I still get a sense of wonderment at Yosemite Valley which I consider the prettiest place on earth. It seems that all the elements were placed just right to give the sense of awe whether you are looking at the valley from its entrance, standing in the middle of it or on top of Glacier Point. We talk of God's design as a metaphor for such a place but we all know it was produced by law and chance as the glacier first carved out the valley and then receded to allow the trees to grow and the water to flow. But here in the discussion of evolution and the origin of life we tend to use the term as more one of purpose in contrast to the wondrous array of nature. And when confined to this, we can often distinguish between the sort of random effects that life's activity has and the purposeful parts. We also tend to use the term design to apply to those entities outside the life form that are left due to the activity of the life form. I am not talking about the space ship, the skyscraper, the works of Michaelangelo etc but unconscious activity that indicates that life was once there. As such it is murky whether a foot print or the mark of something dragged or some other indication that the life form was there is design or not. We can compare a beaver dam to the indentations in the ground due to the dragging of the log. Is one design and the other not. Most would say the indentation is not design so we are left with consequences that mostly have some purpose or function which we call design. So one of the characteristics of a lot of design is purpose. Even an idle doodling often has a purpose or a lot of other apparent unconscious activity. But a supposedly random scribble or foot dragging is a lot different than an automobile. Design detection does not attempt to determine all design since that would be impossible but it tries to determine if a specific entity was part of the subset of design. That is what the explanatory filter is trying to do. It wants to include only things that are designed with the understanding that a whole lot of designed things will be left out but no undesigned items get included. Since it tries not to include anything that may be not designed, it constantly is assessing whether something can be due to the work of law and chance and even if there is only the smallest possibility that it could be due so. It will not declare a lot of entities designed even they were. An aside, Dembski's EF is an attempt to be very general and include items from a wide range of activity as designed and as such the attempts get a little bit murky as to the reasoning because of the generality. But we should not confuse these designed items that may be a little bit vague with other items are so obviously designed that the rationale is simple and straightforward. Now one of the things we notice about a lot of design, though not all, is that it has a function. It accomplishes something for a larger purpose and often it accomplishes it because it is necessary for several interdependent parts to work in unison. We can point to a sub part and say that this along with other sub parts leads to an eventual result that is good for the entity. A computer, water system, farming, art, etc. This is not hard to see as we are all familiar with the multitude of purposeful activity and machines in our world. We can also see that the same phenomena also happens within life. In fact some of the more sophisticated processes we know about are within life forms and cells in particular. So is life designed. Someone can come along and say no it is not but then do they have any knowledge that shows that it is not designed. It obviously has function and interacting sub parts with function. All the essential elements of a complicated machine. Then we learn that the basis of this coordination is a sophisticated computer like process using incredibly complicated code to make and control the parts and processes. For most of human life it was noticed that life was incredibly coordinated and nearly everyone thought it was designed. This was before anyone knew any biology and knew about the sub-systems and how they worked together or the incredibly sophisticated code that is necessary to control it. It seems like the more sophisticated we know the system of life is the more adamant a sub group seems to be saying it was all just an accident. Each new discovery must be accompanied by the obligatory phrase it evolved or it was selected for. Like these incredibly complex interacting machines just arise out of nowhere all the time. The person who says that life is not designed has an obligation to show how such a thing that has all the interconnecting functional processes with the incredibly complex code could have arisen by law and chance. They must be able to point to a process in nature that leads to such entities. They cannot just make the claim and defy you to show otherwise. They have to show you the way. We get a lot of unsophisticated voices here who just assert it happened without showing the way. The sophisticated do not do this because they know there is no known way it could have happened. They are commenting in some journal about the difficulty of showing the way and discussing the possibilities on how it might have happened. So it gets a little tiresome to see the comments that it must have happened naturally because it is here and only nature is allowed to do it. Or another argument is to make sarcastic comments about an unknown designer like it was a thief in the night. Argument by sarcasm and assertion seems to be a necessary technique. One thing they cannot do is argue for their position. All they do is assert it.jerry
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
Alan, did you miss this (164)? Before I give you a definition do you agree that (design) is something that exists? . . . Why so coy? Nothing coy, just trying be keep the discussion clear: For instance:
The word “design” exists as a noun and a verb. People design and build things . . .But just having a word does not give something existence. How can I agree something exists before you tell me what that something is?
You seem to be saying design exists and you describe it then you say you can’t agree that it exists until I tell you what it is despite it being something you apparently know. So to get to the point, we agree that design exists, right?tribune7
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
iconofid:
As I pointed out to Joseph, what we don’t know at any particular time does not = intelligent design.
Science allows us to make inferences given our current state of knowledge. Science does not and cannot wait for what the future may of may not uncover. And as I said above if we listen to icon then the theory of evolution amounts to "we don't know".
Now, be positive, and devise an experiment which will demonstrate your mechanism in action, the mysterious designer designing.
Design is a mechanism. So if Dr Behe went into a lab and designed a bacterial flagellum would that "prove" ID?
This can be done for mutation, selection and drift, as you know.
1- Not all mutations are unguided- IOW mutation could very well be part of the design- evolved by design 2- Mutation, selection and drift have NEVER been observed to do anything except slight, oscillating variations. IOW you don't have anything to support your position. So how about it- can you provide an experiment that demonstrates the true powers of yourt proposed mechanisms? Or is confirming the Creation model of evolution the best you can do?Joseph
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
uoflcard:
Because even demonstrating a possible pathway would refute that argument for intelligent agency, regardless of whether it actually happened that way.
I diodn't say anything about a possible pathway. They have to demonstrate it can arise without agency involvement. Period.Joseph
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
iconof id, YOu don't seem to understand ID. ID does NOT say that the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved. The debate is all about the mechanisms- Was it designed to evolve- ie evcolved by design or did it evolve via an accumulation of genetic accidents? And in the end "nature" had a beginning- tat is according to science- and seeing that natural processes exist oinly in nature they cannot account for its origin. IOW YOU also requiore the non-natural. Deal with it.Joseph
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
iconofid says he? doesn't see evidence for design yet he? cannot support his position. What part of that don't these guys understand? Support your position as opposed to arguing, from ignorance, against ID. Also it is a bit ironic that icon says that "we don't know" out of one side of his? mouth but out of the other comes "but we know it wasn't via a designer". Just about the entire theory of evolution equates to "we don't know". Do chimps and humans share a common ancestor? We don' know is the ONLY honest answer. Did whales evolve from land animals? Again we don't know is the only honest answer. And again both design and intelligence are NATURAL. We can and do make determinations of agency involvement on a daily basis. And guess what? Reality has demonstrated that it matters to any investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agency involvement or nature, operating freely. And the people who refuse to understand tat basic fact have no business conducting an investigation.Joseph
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT
UB, 176: Very well said. Especially:
Is it too much to say that we don’t know enough about our physical world to even venture an assessment of what can happen by means of chance working within physical law? Are we expecting that under the proper conditions nitrogen and carbon will spring into action by expressing themselves in ways that we had no idea was under our noses – like forming with other elements and starting to record their existence in a conventional code of digital information that is proofread and error-corrected, but isn’t contingent on physical need? . . . . what is left on the table? It is the virtually unmistakable evidence of an agent. It is the only cause that is capable of the non-determinant, non-random, non-ordered, physically-inert, foresighted coordination that is the absolute and undeniable hallmark of nucleic sequencing . . . . FSC results from the equivalent of a succession of integrated algorithmic decision node “switch settings.” FSC alone instructs sophisticated metabolic function. Self-ordering processes preclude both complexity and sophisticated functions. Self-ordering phenomena are observed daily in accord with chaos theory. But under no known circumstances can self-ordering phenomena like hurricanes, sand piles, crystallization, or fractals produce algorithmic organization. Algorithmic “self-organization” has never been observed [70] despite numerous publications that have misused the term [21,151-162]. Bona fide organization always arises from choice contingency, not chance contingency or necessity.
Can anyone here present a known counter-example -- observed not theoretical or speculative -- to Bona fide organization always arises from choice contingency, not chance contingency or necessity? There are many, many observed supportive instances; starting with the software on your PC. So in the absence of serious counter example, we have good reason to confidently conclude that we have a best explanation of such organisation: namely, design. And, BTW, that is one reason why design thought adds significantly to our ability to observe, describe, analyse, understand, explain and act into our world. GEM of TKI PS: I have now summarised my thoughts on where failing to understand the crucial difference between [a] chance [ = stochastic, undirected contingency], [b] necessity [= mechanical forces acting in accordance with low-contingency dynamics] and [c] rational choice [= design] leaves us, here and here. {The latter focuses on how intelligently designed foresighted target seeking programs came to be presented as in effect significantly analogous to spontaneous, undirected random variation and competition among functioning entities for survival and reproduction; through a question-begging contrast between "single step" and "cumulative" selection.)kairosfocus
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT
Evidence of agency can be found in irreducible complexity and complex specified information. Now to refute that inference all one has to do is demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can account for it.
Are you serious? Yes Alan that is how science operates. I take it that you don't understand science.
All we have to do to refute irreducible complexity and CSI, which you have so far not defined and which rationalists suggest is an empty set, is to demonstrate they occur naturally?
Both CSI and IC are more rigorously defined than ANYTHING your position has to offer. As a matter of fact your position doen't define anything. As for Del's book, read the whole thing. Then maybe you will have a clue. Ya see "natural" isn't the issue. UNGUIDED is.
Joseph
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT
Upright Biped: Your argument is exactly why I asked you to provide a single paragraph that you could challenge. I don't disagree with Trevors and Abel that there are gaps in our knowledge. I see nothing in the paper that shows that nature cannot produce "algorithmic instruction". Now that we are down here at the bottom of your religious God of the Gaps argument, how does it feel? “We have an unknown force that we invoke in defense of observations we cannot explain by chance and necessity alone; it is the God of the Unknown.” Why does it require an unknown force for chemical evolution to produce "FSC"? What laws of physics would that process break? What is unknown is the chemistry of the OOL, and the chemistry of the evolution of the genetic code. There are enormous gaps in our knowledge of biology all over the place. It's in its infancy, compared to what could be known. But it doesn't require any unknown forces so far as I know. Isn't that your claim rather than mine? Are Trevors and Abel suggesting that the sophisticated organization that empirical observation tells us is required in intelligent designers cannot come about naturally? Or just that we don't yet know the full story of how it could happen? If the latter, I agree. If the former, we'll start discussing the impossibility of the existence of intelligence (according to I.D. arguments) or empirical evidence for the non-natural (a brief discussion, inevitably). From the paper: But under no known circumstances can self-ordering phenomena like hurricanes, sand piles, crystallization, or fractals produce algorithmic organization. Note the "no known". Why should I disagree? Would you agree that there are, inevitably, lots of unknown circumstances in the history of this planet? What we'll get into here is that I'll be accusing I.D. of "God of the gaps", and you'll be accusing me (correctly) of "nature of the gaps". Expect the response "which do we have the most empirical evidence for, an invisible interventionist intelligent designer, or nature"? You say: It is asking: are the artifacts of chance and necessity mechanisms apparent (indicated, specified, inferred by what is available to us) in the sequencing of nucleic acids. As you know, I always infer natural processes for natural phenomena. If we both google "research nucleic acids" and spend a few days reading around, we might find out some of what's "available to us". We'd certainly find that it's an area of ongoing research. If you want to conclude "design" on the basis of current knowledge, go ahead. It would be good to see I.D.ers united in common concrete views, like "bacterial flagella cannot evolve" (is there unity there?). If I.D. already has a measured way of detecting design, how soon will we see a general agreement amongst I.D.ers on what evolves naturally, and what is designed? Surely all brains of all species must be designed considering the amount of species specific complex information they seem to contain? What do you think? I'll have a look at the research on sequencing of nucleic acids when I've got time, to show that I'm taking I.D. arguments seriously.iconofid
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT
Icon, It is clear that instead of addressing the evidence you would like to flank with the “god of the gaps’ charge. The reasons for this are just as obvious. So let’s go there for a moment shall we? The infamous gaps argument (stall) states that we know nothing of how IT happened, so lets just say what we wish happened and call it a day. But, does that charge fit Abel’s work? Abel’s “Three Subsets” paper is not a quantitative assessment in its fullest form, instead it is qualitative. It’s asking the question of fitness to the observed effect for the mechanisms currently assumed to be the cause. It is asking: are the artifacts of chance and necessity mechanisms apparent (indicated, specified, inferred by what is available to us) in the sequencing of nucleic acids. So the immediate question is “do we know anything about chance and necessity that would give us any reasonable footing whatsoever to make such a qualitative assessment? Your answer, as the basis of your charge, is “no” we do not. But the answer is YES, we know a GREAT DEAL about how chance and necessity function. Do you think that chance and necessity have not been studied rigorously? Please explain the basis of your claim. It would seem that we had to know a thing or two for Einstein to craft the Theory of Relativity - and I hear that Newton, Déscartes, Gödel, and La Place were fairly competent mathematicians. Didn’t we find the quark and the photon? Is it too much to say that we don’t know enough about our physical world to even venture an assessment of what can happen by means of chance working within physical law? Are we expecting that under the proper conditions nitrogen and carbon will spring into action by expressing themselves in ways that we had no idea was under our noses – like forming with other elements and starting to record their existence in a conventional code of digital information that is proofread and error-corrected, but isn’t contingent on physical need? In fact, let’s turn your argument around and see how it drives: “We expect that there is an unknown quality of chance that explains why inanimate elements begin to record their existence.” “We expect that electromagnetism and quantum mechanics will soon explain why inanimate chemicals organize themselves and begin demonstrating a drive for survival.” - - - - - - - - - - Now that we are down here at the bottom of your religious God of the Gaps argument, how does it feel? “We have an unknown force that we invoke in defense of observations we cannot explain by chance and necessity alone; it is the God of the Unknown.” Is this your solid rationale? Please allow me to highlight something about history and human nature that you may not be aware of; your rationale has an unmistakable face on it. It’s the kind of rationale that only exists by power, not by argument. So what is left on the table? It is the virtually unmistakable evidence of an agent. It is the only cause that is capable of the non-determinant, non-random, non-ordered, physically-inert, foresighted coordination that is the absolute and undeniable hallmark of nucleic sequencing. That is the exact point of the research that you refuse to address. Despite your mockery, David Abel and the others are not lowly thinkers. Your argument is exactly why I asked you to provide a single paragraph that you could challenge. You failed to do so. In failing to do so, you’ve only deepened your position that the God of the Unknown is mighty and should command the respect of those who look at the evidence instead. You might find the role reversal distasteful, but at least you’ve earned it. Now if you’d like to address the issue instead, please be my guest: Random Sequence Complexity (RSC) A linear string of stochastically linked units, the sequencing of which is dynamically inert, statistically unweighted, and is unchosen by agents; a random sequence of independent and equiprobable unit occurrence. Ordered Sequence Complexity (OSC) A linear string of linked units, the sequencing of which is patterned either by the natural regularities described by physical laws (necessity) or by statistically weighted means (e.g., unequal availability of units), but which is not patterned by deliberate choice contingency (agency). Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC) A linear, digital, cybernetic string of symbols representing syntactic, semantic and pragmatic prescription; each successive sign in the string is a representation of a decision-node configurable switch-setting – a specific selection for function. Conclusions In summary, Sequence complexity can be 1) random (RSC), 2) ordered (OSC), or functional (FSC). OSC is on the opposite end of the bi-directional vectorial spectrum of complexity from RSC. FSC is usually paradoxically closer to the random end of the complexity scale than the ordered end. FSC is the product of nonrandom selection. FSC results from the equivalent of a succession of integrated algorithmic decision node "switch settings." FSC alone instructs sophisticated metabolic function. Self-ordering processes preclude both complexity and sophisticated functions. Self-ordering phenomena are observed daily in accord with chaos theory. But under no known circumstances can self-ordering phenomena like hurricanes, sand piles, crystallization, or fractals produce algorithmic organization. Algorithmic "self-organization" has never been observed [70] despite numerous publications that have misused the term [21,151-162]. Bone fide organization always arises from choice contingency, not chance contingency or necessity. Reduced uncertainty (misnamed "mutual entropy") cannot measure prescriptive information (information that specifically informs or instructs). Any sequence that specifically informs us or prescribes how to achieve success inherently contains choice controls. The constraints of physical dynamics are not choice contingent. Prescriptive sequences are called "instructions" and "programs." They are not merely complex sequences. They are algorithmically complex sequences. They are cybernetic. Random sequences are maximally complex. But they don't do anything useful. Algorithmic instruction is invariably the key to any kind of sophisticated organization such as we observe in any cell. –Trevors & AbelUpright BiPed
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 8

Leave a Reply