Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Lobbing a grenade into the Tetrapod Evolution picture

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A year ago, Nature published an educational booklet with the title 15 Evolutionary gems (as a resource for the Darwin Bicentennial). Number 2 gem is Tiktaalik a well-preserved fish that has been widely acclaimed as documenting the transition from fish to tetrapod. Tiktaalik was an elpistostegalian fish: a large, shallow-water dwelling carnivore with tetrapod affinities yet possessing fins. Unfortunately, until Tiktaalik, most elpistostegids remains were poorly preserved fragments.

“In 2006, Edward Daeschler and his colleagues described spectacularly well preserved fossils of an elpistostegid known as Tiktaalik that allow us to build up a good picture of an aquatic predator with distinct similarities to tetrapods – from its flexible neck, to its very limb-like fin structure. The discovery and painstaking analysis of Tiktaalik illuminates the stage before tetrapods evolved, and shows how the fossil record throws up surprises, albeit ones that are entirely compatible with evolutionary thinking.”

Just when everyone thought that a consensus had emerged, a new fossil find is reported – throwing everything into the melting pot (again!). Trackways of an unknown tetrapod have been recovered from rocks dated 10 million years earlier than Tiktaalik. The authors say that the trackways occur in rocks that: “can be securely assigned to the lower-middle Eifelian, corresponding to an age of approximately 395 million years”. At a stroke, this rules out not only Tiktaalik as a tetrapod ancestor, but also all known representatives of the elpistostegids. The arrival of tetrapods is now considered to be 20 million years earlier than previously thought and these tetrapods must now be regarded as coexisting with the elpistostegids. Once again, the fossil record has thrown up a big surprise, but this one is not “entirely compatible with evolutionary thinking”. It is a find that was not predicted and it does not fit at all into the emerging consensus.

“Now, however, Niedzwiedzki et al. lob a grenade into that picture. They report the stunning discovery of tetrapod trackways with distinct digit imprints from Zachemie, Poland, that are unambiguously dated to the lowermost Eifelian (397 Myr ago). This site (an old quarry) has yielded a dozen trackways made by several individuals that ranged from about 0.5 to 2.5 metres in total length, and numerous isolated footprints found on fragments of scree. The tracks predate the oldest tetrapod skeletal remains by 18 Myr and, more surprisingly, the earliest elpistostegalian fishes by about 10 Myr.” (Janvier & Clement, 2010)

The Nature Editor’s summary explained: “The finds suggests that the elpistostegids that we know were late-surviving relics rather than direct transitional forms, and they highlight just how little we know of the earliest history of land vertebrates.” Henry Gee, one of the Nature editors, wrote in a blog:

“What does it all mean?
It means that the neatly gift-wrapped correlation between stratigraphy and phylogeny, in which elpistostegids represent a transitional form in the swift evolution of tetrapods in the mid-Frasnian, is a cruel illusion. If – as the Polish footprints show – tetrapods already existed in the Eifelian, then an enormous evolutionary void has opened beneath our feet.”

For more, go here:
Lobbing a grenade into the Tetrapod Evolution picture
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/01/09/lobbing_a_grenade_into_the_tetrapod_evol

Additional note: The Henry Gee quote is interesting for the words “elpistostegids represent a transitional form”. In some circles, transitional forms are ‘out’ because Darwinism presupposes gradualism and every form is no more and no less transitional than any other form. Gee reminds us that in the editorial office of Nature, it is still legitimate to refer to old-fashioned transitional forms!

Comments
tribune7 Thanks for responding. What are the limits as to what your facial recognition software can become? Without any new input from the designer can it evolve into a web browser or spell-checker? Can a search algorithm happen by chance? You are correct that the face recognition GA is not going to evolve into a web browser. In particular, the "genetic units" it uses are more limited in scope - various coefficents that can be tweaked. (I was using this only to suggest that some useful complexity information is gained by these mechamisms, not as a model for the whole system). Evolution in a system is essentially a search algorithm for the must "useful" combinations of building blocks, but it cannot easily transcend the capabilities of those blocks. Luckily, in the physical world, DNA/RNA plus proteins is the ultimate tinkertoy set, and that set of building blocks is demonstrably capable of supporting incredible complexity - because it does. At question is whether these amazing building blocks can also evolve the current complexity using only natural selection pressure (and mutation/noise). Anyway, your latter question is the more interesting one - algorithms are probably closer to the analog of genotypes than are web browsers, when transposed to the digital realm. (Web browsers have co-evolved - in the whimsical sense - with human culture as interface elements between the biological complexity at issue here and the digital realm). I would say that in some meaningful sense, face recognition IS a search algorithm within a very complex space. But let's take a simpler case, because that "search space" is very highly manufactured by us programmers for a specific purpose. More interesting would be "evolving" a search algorithm using building blocks of virtual machine code. The key here would be the selection criteria used as metrics. There needs to be some incremental payoff. I'm thinking that a sorting algorithm might make a better project, where being "more sorted" is rewarded. Can one evolve a sorting algorithm which creates "mostly sorted" lists from random lists, using only randomization and selection for "more sorted", but no computer science theory of sorting? Any such experiment would be, obviously, vastly simplified compared to trillions of DNA/RNA/protein based organisms over billions of years. That is, it would have to be too artificial to "prove" anything fundamental; it would only be a suggestive datapoint for somewhat illuminating one corner of the problem. Has anyone done this yet?Zeph
January 23, 2010
January
01
Jan
23
23
2010
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Jerry, Thanks for taking the time on your wireless laptop to reply to this unwieldy thread in some depth! The key issue in the debate is whether any mutation or set of mutations to organisms in the population will increase information enough eventually to form what we call complex new capabilities through sexual reproduction. Yes, as somebody newly intrigued by ID, that seems to be the key question. However, perhaps because of my naivete about information as you suggest, I have a somewhat different perspective about where information - or at least meaningful complexity - is added. I don't see mutation as the key element; adding noise to a system is pretty easy in our entropic universe (and scrambling the genetic analogues in GA is easy). Where "the magic happens" is in selecting "more useful" noise from "less useful" noise! We can observe results when there is a conscious being doing the selection in plant and animal breeding, or when a mechanical algorithm selects survivors in GA - there can be a directed course of evolution. In the Darwinian approach, fitness to reproduce in the face of the environment and competition from other organisms is the "selector", and is obviously much slower. Yet Darwinians believe that with enough trillions of organisms over billions of years, this enormous analog computer of life on earth can produce startling meaningful complexity. It's easy to see why this could seem intuitively astounding and thus dubious. But frankly, I don't trust these "reasoning from common experience" intuitions - they prove wrong way too often in other branches of science. I find both Darwinian and at least some ID hypotheses sufficiently credible to not discard out of hand because of "my gut feeling" nor any need to reduce cognitive dissonance with my faith. I need to see more objective analysis; and I accept that it may take a long time for a clear winner to emerge (to my satisfaction that is). Thanks for the book suggestions; I'll look for them. By the way, I responded here because I found a lot of useful information in this thread (tho it takes patience), and could ask my questions in that context. Any suggestions of a shorter post where this could best continue without being a non sequitur? (or a better website for my kind of curious and non-dogmatic examination?) Thanks again. I would also be glad to hear from non ID folks here, who in my estimation make some very good points as well.Zeph
January 23, 2010
January
01
Jan
23
23
2010
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
Mr BiPed, Where did the idea of a transcendental being come from? Eating the wrong mushrooms. Schizophrenia. I don't buy into the whole basis of this conversation, but the idea of a transcendental being isn't a showstopper in it. How about "prime numbers", "subordinated debentures", or "souffle"? :)Nakashima
January 23, 2010
January
01
Jan
23
23
2010
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
Zeph, great questions. ID does not reject the claims upon which you base some of your more interesting observations. For instance, can information increase in evolution as per your software? Sure, if the proper algorithm is front-loaded into the evolutionary system. Here are some things to consider. What are the limits as to what your facial recognition software can become? Without any new input from the designer can it evolve into a web browser or spell-checker? Can a search algorithm happen by chance? The problem here is that ID theorists would need to be flexible mentally to fairly compute “how much of the current complexity Darwinian evolution could have produced” to the same standards of scientific scrutiny they believe others must follow. OK :-) You might also be interested in Behe's blog responses to some of his critics. ID is a new science and there is no demand to accept its claims as definitive. One of the issues, however, is that the powers that be seem unwilling to consider the claims it raises as can be seen by some of Behe's other post on his Amazon blog. Anyway, welcome to Uncommon Descent.tribune7
January 23, 2010
January
01
Jan
23
23
2010
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
Just looking at a dung beetle in action?
So, there is no thing that man has created by unique thought? The man that invented the wheel did so by observing a dung beetle. And, you know this from Shinola?
Inventing from scratch things we don’t have a clue about, don’t have a name for, that is not easy!
Not only is it not easy, you've indicated that its is not possible. Indeed, this is a comment that cannot be equivocated. Where did the idea of a transcendental being come from?Upright BiPed
January 23, 2010
January
01
Jan
23
23
2010
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
Zeph, You ask a lot of questions and it could take about 400 comments to get answers to all of them. If you want to understand ID, there are several books. My favorites are the two by Behe, Darwin's Black Box and especially the Edge of Evolution. Others may have their own favorites and you seem to be interested in GA's which might mean you may be interested in what Dembski and Marks are currently doing. At various times I have tried to summarize what ID is about in various comments. Some of these are linked on this thread way up at #110. It is a personal attempt and others might not agree. There are also a couple long comment by myself and others on this thread that may be of use. There are a couple other places where ID is discussed on the net. See the links near the top of any page. Telic Thoughts is like this site with various threads on topics of interest. ARN is a more technical site and I am not sure how active it is. Information is key to the discussion but I think you have a naive understanding of what it is about. If you take a population gene pool, it will have a lot more information than what is in any individual organism in the population. If the population reproduces using sexual reproduction, then the new organism will have a unique combination of information but still not have anything that is not in the gene pool. Theoretically the gene pool information can be increased through the mutation of one of the organism's genome in the population and the subsequent gene pool is now larger. It is also possible that environmental conditions may cause only certain combinations to survive while others disappear in which case the population gene pool becomes restricted and loses information. The key issue in the debate is whether any mutation or set of mutations to organisms in the population will increase information enough eventually to form what we call complex new capabilities through sexual reproduction. That is why the Edge of Evolution is such an important book. It argues and I agree with its arguments that it may be impossible to do so. It doesn't argue that information cannot be added but the amount of information is not the issue but the specific combination of it is the issue. The best analogy I know of is language. Adding to a paragraph is not hard, but adding to it so it is coherent and more functional in what it conveys is almost impossible with random additions of letters or even words if they are the unit of addition. People like to resort to large numbers or deep time to say that all is possible but when the actual numbers and time allowed, even hundreds of million of years, are usually not enough to find the possible solutions for what is necessary to drive the complex novel capabilities that appeared in the microbe to man scenario. I also recommend Dawkins new book, The Greatest Show on Earth, which is obviously anti ID but which lays out a lot of the issues. Dawkins does a good job of showing how nature can tease out changes to a population by exploiting information already in the gene pool. He does not do anything to give credence to how information that could control major new functions could arise in the gene pool. This is the failing of Darwinian processes. Another good book to read is Denton's Evolution, A Theory in Crisis. That is the book that started Behe thinking and it is very good at laying out the issues especially of micro vs. macro evolution and why deep time is not the answer. I also recommend trying to bring up these points on a new smaller thread as this one takes forever to load on my wireless lap top so I am sure others have the same problem. It has got to the point of being of being unwieldily.jerry
January 23, 2010
January
01
Jan
23
23
2010
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT
"If Meyer defines the term he should give credit to the guys mentioned above." Kairosfocus pointed out that someone used the term "specified information" or "specified functional information"" in 1978 in talking about OOL. I believe it was Orgel. It's on the web someplace.jerry
January 23, 2010
January
01
Jan
23
23
2010
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT
vjtorley - thanks for all that work! I wonder if it could be made a post (or series of posts) in its own right?Heinrich
January 23, 2010
January
01
Jan
23
23
2010
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT
vjtorley, thanks for the effort to summerize how terms central to ID are currently defined and used. According to your comment at 310
Meyer also defines functional complex specified information (FCSI).
Do you have a reference for this? Unfortunately, I haven't read "Signature in the Cell" until now and can not check it myself but within your later definitions this statement is not repeated or corroborated. To my best knowledge this would be the first time that the term FCSI/FSCI is mentioned in printed ID literature. As Jerry said in his comment at 233 the term was coined here at UD:
Then kairosfocus appeared for the first time and provided his thoughts and soon the term FSCI or functional specified complex information was being used.
I guess KF, Jerry and all the others who contributed to the elaboration of the definition of FCSI/FSCI deserve some appreciation. If Meyer defines the term he should give credit to the guys mentioned above.osteonectin
January 22, 2010
January
01
Jan
22
22
2010
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT
vjtorley- I too salute you for all the work you've done to bring together this "information information," as it were. I have a couple of questions regarding your introductory matter, specifically the paragraphs which say:
[c) Complex specified information (CSI) is information that is both complex (i.e. highly improbable) and specified. An event is “specified” if it exhibits a pattern that matches another pattern that we know independently – either because we have seen such a pattern before, or because it satisfies a functional requirement that we can readily understand from investigating it. Because we can readily make sense of a specified pattern, it follows that a specified pattern will be easily describable in our language. (d) Information is just a mathematical measure of improbability or complexity.
The first sentence of paragraph [c) says (among other things) that CSI is information that is specified. The second sentence explains what it means for an event to be specified. I don't usually think of information as an event. Might it be better to say a thing is specified? Secondly, if as stated in paragraph (d), information is just a measure of complexity, what does it mean to say that information (itself a measurement of complexity) can be specified and complex? It seems like you are using the word information in two ways. It might be clearer to come up with another term for one or the other.Walter Kloover
January 22, 2010
January
01
Jan
22
22
2010
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
I have another question as a newbie. I gather that there are different variations of ID, like ID with Common Descent and ID with Special Creation. Is the ID scientific discipline currently sufficiently robust that some ID schools are capable of falsifying and overcoming the arguments of other ID schools - leaving the Darwinians out of it? Certainly there are many varieties of Darwinnian evolution and vigorous debate based on evidence, and change over time. I suspect that if (or when) ID is true science, it will have similar internal debate and that consensus about the "accurate" version of ID will emerge and then change with new evidence. However, if it should be or later become mainly based on giving credence to "anything but Darwinnian" then it won't grow into a science but will be or become mostly political. I don't know the scientific ID community; is it evolving as a scientific discipline in itself capable of sorting out its own house, or is it more a cultural phenomenon? Where would I find the most purely scientific ID community on the web? This site seems to mix ID science with other motivations and politics (global warming?), and I'm not disputing the value of that mixture - only asking if there is a more specifically scientifically ID website? Thanks!Zeph
January 22, 2010
January
01
Jan
22
22
2010
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
Hi, question from a newbie; any naivete on my part is correctable. I'm intellectually curious about ID. Currently tho I'm talking about information and probability. For the moment, let's leave aside alledged macroevolution over geologic timeframes and look at one person. What is the FSCI of any living breathing person, like myself? How likely is that that a new human would come into existence this year? Or to simplify it, of a new viable human genotype arising and manifesting its phenotype> If we are reasoning from a random reassortment of base pairs, it's astoundingly unlikely that any person - able to live and breath and move - would ever exist in the universe, much less happen to come into existence in that timeframe. That new functioning humans could continue to be born in our own lifetiems is mathematically inplausible, from that argument. Four to what power? And of all those base pair arrangements, how may would create viable human organisms? However, if we took into account the set of parents available and their genes, and the known mechanisms for conception and growth from embryos to adult organisms, it's not that strange. We don't usually posit that the continued birth of new functioning organisms every year is so unlikely as to prove intelligent design, because in our probability calculations we take into account the biological mechanisms that can produce astoundingly unlikely offspring from existing organisms. I am not trying herein to argue either way regarding "where the original complexity came from" - eg: the parents. That's a different question; I'm only talking about calculating how likely or unlikely it is that a new living child could come into being this year. I'm saying that calculating the likelihood of a functioning genotype with and without taking into account the known biological mechanisms comes out radically different. Raising 4 to the number of base pairs is not the relevant calculation, because the new organism's genotype is not arising from brownian motion or random reassortment of base pairs, and no biologist would assert that it is. This still leaves open the question of creating the parents and the reproductive mechanisms that greatly increased the likelihood of producing the new organism. Some believe that Darwinian evolution could do that, some believe that it cannot. That's another argument. My focus is smaller: questioning any calculation which is implicitly based on the assumption that an organism's genotype is randomly created from noise, without regard to known mechanisms and constraints. Moving beyond that simple question, I would be very interested in analysis which convincingly quantizes the amount of information which can be gained through biological mutation, variation and selection and compares that to the information inherent in a working ecosystem (the organism focus is actually too narrow). Because that's the relevant gap (or lack of gap) in information (what Darwinian evolution could have done vs what is needed), not the distance from random noise to a functioning organism. I'm new to learning about serious ID arguments, but not entirely new to information gain, in particular from so called "genetic algorithms" in software. While these could hardly in themselves prove or disprove whether Darwinnian evolution is a "sufficient", they do convince me that true information gain via generations of variation and selection is possible. Yes, I know these operate within an intelligently designed system (assuming folks like me might be called intelligent) - that's not the point if read me carefully; I didn't say the GA software generated information arose from randomness. I said there was information GAIN - that after running generations of GA simulations, there is new "knowledge" in the software (eg: facial recognition patterns which nobody programmed in) which I as the designer did not have and in fact still do not have unless I am able to 'decode' the meaning of the coeffeicients so artificially evolved. This is in fact information which did not exist prior to running the software, so there was an easily demonstrable net gain of total information or complexity. If Darwinian evolution can likewise increase information content over time (if software emulations thereof can do so, this seems plausible), then the questions are "can such mechanisms create *enough* new information over the given time period?" and "is there a way to bootstrap the initial learning system?". I am very open to solid arguments that Darwinian evolution as we understand it is insufficient, so there must be some additional factors - including Intelligent Design (tho that needs more positive evidence than "Darwinian evoluation as we know it today is insufficient"). But merely calculating how unlikely it is that an organism or its genotype would arise in one pass from randomness appears to lack cognizance of the known mechanisms of biology OR computer science. The calculations will need to be far more nuanced than that. The problem here is that ID theorists would need to be flexible mentally to fairly compute "how much of the current complexity Darwinian evolution could have produced" to the same standards of scientific scrutiny they believe others must follow. There may be ID theorists up to this challenge (I said I'm new). Or that calculation may be currently beyond the grasp of Darwinian OR ID theorists alike, leaving the size of the gap unknown. From my experience, those who believe more information or order can never be created are naive about the state of current software; they are reasoning from "common sense" that has been obsoleted. Evolvable systems which increase information content are a practical reality today. That doesn't show anything about Darwinnian Evoluation except that it probably CAN create some information incrementally.Zeph
January 22, 2010
January
01
Jan
22
22
2010
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
"First you defined it as 4 to the power of the length of the genome, then 4 to the power of the length of a coding region, now as transcription/translation. " It has always been about the transcription/translation process. You should read a biology book to understand that the discussion of DNA and amino acids means this. I have been consistent all along. From nearly a year ago https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nazca-lines-in-peru/#comment-305465 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evidence-against-chance-and-necessity-also-known-as-darwinism-is-evidence-for-design/#comment-308475 From six months ago https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/an-eye-into-the-materialist-assault-on-lifes-origins/#comment-326981 From last month https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/darwinism-and-academic-culture-mathematician-jeffrey-shallit-weighs-in/#comment-343760 "At least you are consistent with your assumption of de novo creation. That means your claims are still not applicable to the real world, and that you continue to ignore everyone who has pointed this out to you in great detail, but you are consistent." This is one of the more inept comments I have seen here in years. On an ID site, someone makes an ID conclusion, and those claims are not applicable to the real world. By what criteria? Who pointed what out?jerry
January 22, 2010
January
01
Jan
22
22
2010
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
Nakashima-san, Yarus et al., is interesting but it opens up other issues. For one the RNA, once latched on to the amino acid via stereochemstry, needs a mechanism for releasing it otherwise there will be an issue with folding once the chain is complete. Nevermind the problem of getting the proper RNAs and amino acids in the first place.Joseph
January 22, 2010
January
01
Jan
22
22
2010
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
Nakashima, The Yarus paper looks very interesting but my bio chemistry needs some brushing up. Now how to figure where all those RNA's came from and how to build the information super highway. ATP syntase here we come ready or not. Couldn't find the structure of a riboswitch.jerry
January 22, 2010
January
01
Jan
22
22
2010
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
jerry at 339, FSCI for evolution is precisely defined and is the transcription/translation process used in every biology book on the planet First you defined it as 4 to the power of the length of the genome, then 4 to the power of the length of a coding region, now as transcription/translation. Clearly those evil opponents of ID are completely unreasonable when they say you haven't provided a rigorous definition. The conclusion is that it is most likely intelligently design because of the immense improbability of it (1000 interrelated parts) At least you are consistent with your assumption of de novo creation. That means your claims are still not applicable to the real world, and that you continue to ignore everyone who has pointed this out to you in great detail, but you are consistent.Mustela Nivalis
January 22, 2010
January
01
Jan
22
22
2010
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
"You have yet to define FSCI in a mathematically rigorous fashion, nor have you shown it to take into consideration known physics, chemistry, or evolutionary mechanisms, nor have you demonstrated that it is a clear indication of intelligent intervention." Mustela Nivalis wonders why no one takes him seriously. FSCI for evolution is precisely defined and is the transcription/translation process used in every biology book on the planet. The relationship is accurately defined by the codon table of DNA triplets with amino acids. The conclusion is that it is most likely intelligently design because of the immense improbability of it (1000 interrelated parts) and the fact that no natural process has ever been shown to provide anything similar. As I said you are just a foil for explaining things. There is no objective to get you to assent to anything. But you keep on saying silly things and distort replies so it is possible to clear them up using your inappropriate responses. So keep up the good work, you are helping the ID cause enormously.jerry
January 22, 2010
January
01
Jan
22
22
2010
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
R0b--You can scour ID works until doomsday and not find any CSI (or FSCI, or FCSI) analysis that allows for a possibility of Darwinian factors. R0b, CSI as has been discussed here involves the structure of proteins and DNA. What Darwinian factors would be involved in the formation of proteins and DNA?tribune7
January 22, 2010
January
01
Jan
22
22
2010
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
jrry, I fully concur with Mr. Nivalis. His point about valid CSI calculations -- or an obvious lack of such calculations -- still stands. You can scour ID works until doomsday and not find any CSI (or FSCI, or FCSI) analysis that allows for a possibility of Darwinian factors. Assuming tractability of such probability calculations, taking into account physical laws in addition to random mutations could significantly shrink CSI totals. As it is, uniform distributions form a singular basis for CSI claims, and applicability of such quantifications to biological organisms is doubtful. Why IDists don't work to fill this lacuna is a puzzling conundrum. I trust that my communication is passably lucid. Cordially yours, R0bR0b
January 22, 2010
January
01
Jan
22
22
2010
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
Mr Jerry, This simple statement is great speculation and tries to hide how immense the problem is but it also begs the question that any functions they will have will also have the same functions for life. I lost a message referencing Yarus' recent paper but I think that is the place to start to understand this is not just speculation. But it is the place to focus attention.Nakashima
January 22, 2010
January
01
Jan
22
22
2010
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
jerry at 333, If the others can get CSI defined well enough so it can be applied to evolution, then fine. If they cannot, then FSCI will do which is a subset of CSI which is easy to understand and less difficult to operationalize. You have yet to define FSCI in a mathematically rigorous fashion, nor have you shown it to take into consideration known physics, chemistry, or evolutionary mechanisms, nor have you demonstrated that it is a clear indication of intelligent intervention. Let's see a calculation for a real biological artifact, that is applicable given what we know about the real world.Mustela Nivalis
January 22, 2010
January
01
Jan
22
22
2010
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
"AAs and RNAs associate with each other in a non-random way that leads to the accumulation of functional chains of longer and longer length." This simple statement is great speculation and tries to hide how immense the problem is but it also begs the question that any functions they will have will also have the same functions for life. Or else there will have to start all over again. There is a lot of begging the question here, I wouldn't mind this so much if the researchers doing this would admit the highly speculative chain they are proposing and let that admission get into textbooks. Instead students and the public get the impression that it is just around the corner. Whether to the power 20, or the log of 2, it is a good way to show the enormity of the task. I can see why you want to avoid it. Yes, all the king's multiverses and all the king's monkeys couldn't put the cell together again.jerry
January 22, 2010
January
01
Jan
22
22
2010
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
"You also need to understand that pointing the finger of blame at your opponents ignores the very real possibility that you just haven’t made your case well enough. I still haven’t seen a calculation for CSI, as described in No Free Lunch, for a real biological artifact, taking into consideration known physics, chemistry, and evolutionary mechanisms." You are addressing someone who is critical of using the CSI concept for evolution for the reasons I spelled out in #233. And I can show you other places where I criticized the attempt to use the concept for evolution for the exact same reasons. I base my assessment on the overall behavior of people here and you fit the stereotype pretty well. Each one of your replies could be analyzed based on what you say and do not say. More often than not it is what you do not say or if you distort what others say. As I said, you are not the target for any of my comments though I will use what people like you say to form my comments. I only read a little of what you say because it is often irrelevant as far as I am concerned. I haven't seen a valid objection you have made yet that couldn't be answered. If the others can get CSI defined well enough so it can be applied to evolution, then fine. If they cannot, then FSCI will do which is a subset of CSI which is easy to understand and less difficult to operationalize.jerry
January 22, 2010
January
01
Jan
22
22
2010
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
Mustela Nivalis, The theory of evolution doesn't have any such calculations. There isn't any measurement for Common Descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents. EVERY test of the premise (Common Descent) is extremely subjective. That said there aren't any known physics, chemistry nor evolutionary mechanisms* that can bring forth living organisms from non-living matter. There aren't any known processes that can "evolve" a (bacterial) flagellum in a population of bacteria that never had one. Also you don't "calculate CSI for a real biological artifact". You measure the information to see if CSI is present. You do that by counting the bits- 2 bits per nucleotide- of a functioning biological system. Then to refute the design inference- if one is made- all someone has to do is demonstrate that some blind, undirected process can account for it. That said what Jerry said is true. You don't have any interest in learning. That is evident with your "evolutionary mechanism" tripe. BTW Meyer takes into account exactly what you say IDists do not- read "Signature in the Cell".Joseph
January 22, 2010
January
01
Jan
22
22
2010
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
jerry at 327, People like Aleta and Mustela Nivalis and Jospeh Backwards are not really the target. They cannot be convinced of anything but others reading might be. This is insulting and unsupportable. If I weren't genuinely interested in understanding the putative positive evidence for ID, I would spend so much of my limited free time participating here. If you have real evidence, I will consider it fairly. You need to understand that new claims get questioned and challenged. That's a good thing. It helps to clarify the thinking behind them and provides an opportunity for the proponents of those claims to support them with objective, empirical evidence. The biggest insult that those of us unconvinced by current ID arguments could make would be to ignore you. Is that what you want? You also need to understand that pointing the finger of blame at your opponents ignores the very real possibility that you just haven't made your case well enough. I still haven't seen a calculation for CSI, as described in No Free Lunch, for a real biological artifact, taking into consideration known physics, chemistry, and evolutionary mechanisms. This despite repeated, polite requests. I've heard claims that it could be done and claims that it has been done, but no one has filled in that middle bit of actually doing it. Look to the beam in your own eye before laying your failures at the feet of your opponents. To be fair, there are ID proponents who understand this; vjtorley and CJYman come immediately to mind. If you want to really promote ID, you need to learn it too.Mustela Nivalis
January 22, 2010
January
01
Jan
22
22
2010
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
Mr Jerry, And when these are expressed it becomes clear that the basic step wise scenario has lots of problems and can not hold up. I think you are right to focus on the actual steps assumed to happen, and forgo the negative log 2 of something to the power of bignum probability calculations. As I see it, some of those steps are: Amino acids form abiotically somewhere, and accumulate somewhere. RNA nucleotides form abiotically somewhere, and accumulate (and form chains) somewhere. Accumulated AAs and RNA chains are brought together somewhere, kept in proximity to each other and other feedstock molecules created abiotically, at appropriate temperatures and pressures. AAs and RNAs associate with each other in a non-random way that leads to the accumulation of functional chains of longer and longer length. Phospholipid bilayers become the common method of enclosing AAs, RNAs and other chemicals. These are some of the basic steps which need to be critiqued strongly, in my opinion.Nakashima
January 22, 2010
January
01
Jan
22
22
2010
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
Mr Vjtorley, Thank you for your efforts to bring all of this material into one place. I really appreciate it. I responded to your citation of Kalinsky above @290. With the conversation moving quickly, I hope you got a chance to see it. Abel never proves that his categories of OSC, RSC, and FSC do not overlap or are complete, nor provides an effective procedure for deciding into which category something will fall. This is the sad pattern of his papers, that they consist mainly of definitions and assertions about the categories defined, without proofs or evidence. If we examined digits 1000-1100 from the numbers 1/7, 22/7, 2^(1/2)phi, pi, and e, how would Abel sort them into those three categories and/or the additional category "none of the above"? He also would clearly like to believe that the field of genetic programming did not exist.Nakashima
January 22, 2010
January
01
Jan
22
22
2010
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
Jerry, Understood- practice makes perfect and all of that. Good luck with that...Joseph
January 22, 2010
January
01
Jan
22
22
2010
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
"Jerry and VJ you guys are wasting your time." I often write these things to make clear my own thoughts. I am not a good writer and if I do it enough times and know where to look for it in the future then I can eventually make it clearer. People like Aleta and Mustela Nivalis and Jospeh Backwards are not really the target. They cannot be convinced of anything but others reading might be. The whole tone of the debate here and other places indicates that others and ourselves by answering these questions are having an effect. I see the answers by Dembski, Behe and those here mirrored on other sites more than I did 3-4 years ago. For example, people are using the term "information" in other places to describe the evolution problem. So I do not consider it wasted and will read VJTorley's comments to see what can be distilled out of them for the future. The argument that it was done piece by piece via a cumulative processes is the stock argument for the origin of the cell and the complicated proteins in it. It is a specious argument and we have to spend more time on it because it keeps coming up and people like Mustela Nivalis thinks it is a given. However, it assumes certain things that are never enunciated. And when these are expressed it becomes clear that the basic step wise scenario has lots of problems and can not hold up. So this gradualist argument for the building of proteins will come up again and maybe next time I can answer it even more clearly. Well Backward Joseph took a dead thread and turned it into 320+ comments.jerry
January 22, 2010
January
01
Jan
22
22
2010
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
vjtorley at 318, As for Definition Four, except that the authors’ discussion of functionality is much more technically advanced in this 2009 paper. FSC is simply a biological version of FCSI. The authors provide a very detailed account of bio-functionality, but do not attempt to provide a definition of the term “specified.” (See Definitions One and Two above for this.) That’s all for the time being. It’s taken many hours to put all this together. I’ll be back later. Thank you very much for taking the time to pull all this information together. It's very convenient to have it all in one place. As it turns out, I actually have read all of your references in my search for a definition of CSI that ID proponents agree uniquely identifies design and that takes into account known physics, chemistry, and evolutionary mechanisms. Unfortunately, none of your referenced materials do that. Most suffer from the assumption of a uniform probability distribution (the tornado in a junkyard fallacy described by Aleta). The few that don't are never shown to be applied to real biological artifacts, primarily because "specification" is such a vague concept. I look forward to you addressing those issues, when you have the time. Thanks again for the research.Mustela Nivalis
January 22, 2010
January
01
Jan
22
22
2010
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 14

Leave a Reply