Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Michael Yarus and the Thing that Couldn’t Die

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

MSTMichael Yarus, an emeritus professor at UColorado,  is one of the leading experts on the RNA World hypothesis, which takes the origin of life as flowing from RNA chemistry. His recent book with Harvard UP, Life from an RNA World, contains lots of material responding to ID, though without basic understanding, to say nothing of nuance.

The reason I bring the book up here, however, is to note his extensive use of Dawkins’ famous METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL evolutionary computing simulation. Yarus changes the target phrase to NOTHING IN BIOLOGY MAKES SENSE EXCEPT IN THE LIGHT OF EVOLUTION, but the essence of Dawkins’ simulation is nonetheless there in all its glory — indeed, Yarus develops this “instance of evolution” more extensively than Dawkins did. Moreover, Yarus sees this simulation as underwriting the power of evolutionary processes.

Dawkins’ simulation has come under considerable criticism both here at UD and at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, where we have implemented “WEASEL WARE” (go here). Some internet critics have urged that we are beating a dead horse, that this example was never meant to be taken too seriously, and that if we were “serious scientists,” we would be directing our energies elsewhere. Let me suggest that these critics take up their concerns with Yarus.

The reason we keep bringing up Dawkins’ example is because evolutionists themselves won’t let it die. You can find Yarus’ discussion of it beginning on p. 64 of his book. It is available at Google Books here. Or you can view it below:

Comments
4) Oh, and when another field of science makes statements refuting Darwinism, then it magically does not apply to biology. See, even though living things are completely reducible to pure chemistry, it is somehow also quite different from everything else for some unknown reason. Maybe simply because Darwinism is "THE THING THAT COULDN'T DIE"hannodb
June 8, 2010
June
06
Jun
8
08
2010
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
Thank you William, for this post. On a previous article of Uncommon Decent, a Darwinist confronted me with a 24 page technical paper from Yarus, which he claimed refutes Stephen Meyer's SITC argument. As a layman, I'm quite defenceless when being put on the spot with something like this, but he was kind enough to explain to me what Yarus is saying in simple terms. In short, Yarus seems to have found an evolutionary pathway for the formation of tRNA, which he then claimed refutes Stephens argument of the DNA enigma. Though I could not refute the paper, I could refute the idea that the arbitrary nature tRNA is central to Stephen's argument. I would also suspect that the conditions under which Yarus performed his experiments most probably did not resemble a realistic prebiotic environment, and the paper probably was filled with evolutionary assumptions. Ofcause, without the necesary technical knowledge, that is the best I could do. I aslo found an accusation from the Darwinists that ID scientists avoid Yarus. Sure enough, a search on EvolutionNews.org did not render any results. However, I attributed this to the fact that ID is young, and the Darwinists simply outnumber the ID scientists with so much, that it is impossible to reply to each and every one of them. However, this post confirms to me that: 1) ID scientists are not afraid to engage with Yarus, as they are not affraid to engage with anyone else. (Not that I ever doubted it, I have yet to hear a Darwinist argument that even comes close to the reasoned and calculated logic of ID) 2) Like the more well known Darwinists like Dawkins, Yarus too is forced to make simple logical errors in order to defend Darwinism. 3) This just once again confirms my believe that more scientific data just creates larger problems for Darwinism, rather than to solve existing problems.hannodb
June 8, 2010
June
06
Jun
8
08
2010
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT
Here is a video I recently uploaded from Dr. Fazale Rana that touches on the RNA world and the origin of life. Problems of the RNA World - Origin Of Life - Dr. Fazale Rana http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4564682bornagain77
June 8, 2010
June
06
Jun
8
08
2010
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT
Un-believe-able. Spend just a day in statistical analysis. This methodology supports any conclusion whatsoever; its provided from the start. No wonder these educated men are convinced of themselves.Upright BiPed
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT
Oops, I really have problems with the "cite" tag. The quote in the previous post ends at "Mutation and selection achieve adaptive texts (texts that make sense) without any target.", and my comment starts with "In other words". Please, take notice of that. It's very important!gpuccio
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT
I would like to just emphasize the part which, IMO, is the brightest pearl in that sea of creative nonsense, because it really deserves attention: People who wish to take refuge in complexity sometimes claim that this kind of result is faked because we included the target statement in our program and then intelligently chose the intermediates. This objection gets the argument backward. Even our starting statement, as indicated earlier, is one out of 1.5 x 10^90. Or, to put it in other words, by induction we get a similar result no matter which statement we pick as the target. The Chomsky gibberish on the opening page of this chapter-written long before and in complete disregard of our present purposes (in order to faithfully emulate English text, but without any meaning)-is one of the statements of our Dobzhansky system and accordingly could be evolved if we so chose. The point is not that we evolved any one statement but that we might choose any target with similar results - descent with modification and selection clearly will navigate to any and all of the 1.5 x 10^90 strings of characters in our system, our toy genome. The objection that we picked a particular goal cannot be to the point, because any possibility would have given the same result, whether or not it is predefined from our point of view. Furthermore, we can eliminate human choice as a factor: the first English word surrounded by spaces occurs quickly, at the 19th step. We could evolve words and compose sentences without any initial target instead of targeting Dobzhansky's aphorism. Mutation and selection achieve adaptive texts (texts that make sense) without any target. In other words, if we choose any of 1.5 x 10^90 strings (or, I suppose, any string at all), and we include it in this wonderful Yarus program, the program can easily evolve it! Ah, and I forgot, "the first English word surrounded by spaces occurs quickly, at the 19th step". And I suppose that, by just dropping an english dictionary in the system, it can easily be selected! But why am I worrying? "Mutation and selection achieve adaptive texts (texts that make sense) without any target." That's probably how Yarus'book was generated. :)gpuccio
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT
Incredible! That's what believing in an RNA world does to a human mind! :)gpuccio
June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply