Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Non-probabilistic design arguments

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Biochemist Michael Behe has stated:

“A man from a primitive culture who sees an automobile might guess that it was powered by the wind or by an antelope hidden under the car, but when he opens up the hood and sees the engine he immediately realizes that it was designed. In the same way biochemistry has opened up the cell to examine what makes it run and we see that it, too, was designed.”

One needs no probabilistic calculation to infer design before a car or cell. Why — as Behe says — “he immediately realizes that it was designed”? Because such dynamic systems show clear hallmarks of organization. Some of them are:

(1) hierarchy of devices and functions (see my previous post);
(2) hierarchy of tasks and actions, when the system is in operation;
(3) implementation of the control-power paradigm (see here);
(4) implementation of the communication paradigm between sub-systems.

Why organization implies intelligent design? Because chance and necessity cannot create organization in principle.

In fact chance is simply a brute force of un-correlation. Example, in coin tossing any outcome is unrelated to the previous ones. Since organization eminently implies relations, how can a producer of non relations create it? Not only chance can do nothing to organize, even it destroys organization if it enter into the systems.

The same, necessity (aka natural laws) per se cannot be the cause of organization because they don’t potentially contain it. Natural laws are relatively simple mathematical equations. These equations don’t implicitly contain the specifications of the least organized system, as the simple function y=x^2 doesn’t contain, say, Riemann’s zeta function, which is of a far higher order than the quadratic one.

Neither the couple natural laws + randomness can create organization. In fact natural laws are a processor. If randomness provides garbage in input to it this processor necessarily outputs garbage.

The usual objections to this non-probabilistic ID argument are:

Objection #1: “This ID argument may be ok for the machines but it doesn’t apply to biological systems because they self-reproduce”.
Reply: On the contrary, the ID inference applies to biology to greater reason, because self-reproduction needs organization of the highest order. That was mathematically proved by J. von Neumann more than half century ago.

Objection #2: “In biology natural selection creates organization by optimizing random variations”.
Reply: Natural selection is simply an additional post processor in the chain of chance and necessity. I said above they provide garbage, so natural selection cannot produce new organization from random variations, because again “garbage in garbage out”.

Objection #3: “Non-probabilistic ID arguments are not scientific because they aren’t quantitative”.
Reply: Science is full of non quantitative arguments. Even entire fields of mathematics are not quantitative. Also, in general, all quantitative arguments are necessarily based on non quantitative assumptions.

Objection #4: “Simple rules can create complex patterns”.
Reply: These patterns have nothing to do with the least organized system.

Objection #5: “Your arguments are only philosophical assumptions”.
Reply: No, they are pure technical, engineering issues.

Objection #6: “Devices, functions, tasks, control-power, communication are only ideas in your mind”.
Reply: No, they are real things you see with your eyes. You deny evidence.

Objection #7: “Organization is not a well defined concept”.
Reply: It is so well defined and known that all technology is based on it. In industry the descriptions of their internal organization are the starting point for the construction of all engineering products. More, some measures of complexity of a system indeed are based on its technical descriptions.

Objection #8: “Natural laws are able to produce ordered configurations”.
Reply: Organization is fully different and far higher than simple order.

Objection #9: “We know that a car is designed only because we see its designers”.
Reply: If we find a machine on Mars we infer design also without knowing its designers.

Objection #10: “Organization makes sense only if you can measure it”.
Reply: No, precise quantitative measures are only an add-on for a design inference in most cases. Similarly, to say that a woman is very beautiful I don’t need to measure her body exactly. It is true — as Norbert Wiener said — that “The amount of information in a system is a measure of its organization degree” but recognition of organization is possible also without precise measures of the amount of information (see here).

Comments
I think points 1-4 in the OP tell us why organization is different than simple order, or the kind of consistent patterns that natural law produces. This one, most especially:
(4) implementation of the communication paradigm between sub-systems.
With communication or informational systems, there is are necessary relationships established. There are dependencies.Silver Asiatic
November 20, 2014
November
11
Nov
20
20
2014
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
gmilling: To a layman, the coral sand appears to be far more complex than a glob of protein. Silver Asiatic: Why doesn’t it appear that way to everyone? Me_Think: What do you mean by everyone ? You mean to ask ... ?
No, I meant to ask what I actually asked. I find it hard to believe that you don't understand the dialogue above. But most importantly, your hypothetical case tells me that you're missing something about the ID inference. For one thing, you're using mere complexity as a measure. A pile of rocks is more complex than a short sentence in English. But as you look at the OP, the key point that "dynamic systems show clear hallmarks of organization", and this is a strong indicator of design. Chance is a "force of un-correlation". The more random, the less organization. Chance actually destroys organization in systems, and measures are taken (even in living cells) to defeat and prevent chance occurrences. Natural laws do not create organization because they are not the principle of organization where they operate. They are a function of organization themselves. Ok, if you want to discuss this, I will help you. The previous paragraph about natural laws offer your best avenue for attack. I will point out that Objection #8 in the OP is where you'll find your best chance:
Objection #8: “Natural laws are able to produce ordered configurations”. Reply: Organization is fully different and far higher than simple order.
I understand the reply and I offered my own, but much more could be said about this. To niwrad: I think your brief explanation here:
The same, necessity (aka natural laws) per se cannot be the cause of organization because they don’t potentially contain it. Natural laws are relatively simple mathematical equations. These equations don’t implicitly contain the specifications of the least organized system, as the simple function y=x^2 doesn’t contain, say, Riemann’s zeta function, which is of a far higher order than the quadratic one.
... was good, but I also think it needs a more complete treatment and greater clarity. I'd suggest more examples. Also, it might not be true that natural laws are mathematical equations, but rather they are consistent, predictable natural forces which are defined by mathematics. Why don't these forces produce organization? What do you mean by organization being of a higher order than simple order? Those are better areas for discussion, in my opinion.Silver Asiatic
November 20, 2014
November
11
Nov
20
20
2014
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
Me Think- science doesn't seem to have any methodology wrt unguided evolution. And ordinary sand looks complicated to you, perhaps. BTW the design inference requires more than mere complexityJoe
November 20, 2014
November
11
Nov
20
20
2014
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic @ 117 What do you mean by everyone ? You mean to ask why scientists will not use this method to declare design ? Seriously ? Joe @ 119 LOL ! Even ordinary sand looks complicated under microscopeMe_Think
November 20, 2014
November
11
Nov
20
20
2014
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
But anyway, if coral sand is "it's sand made up of tiny bits of coral and other ocean animals such as foraminifera, molluscs, and crustaceans", then yes, it would have CSI as all of those organisms have CSI, even though they are dead. Those organisms contain more than one protein...Joe
November 20, 2014
November
11
Nov
20
20
2014
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
gmilling, It is self-evident that you have no idea what you are saying.Joe
November 20, 2014
November
11
Nov
20
20
2014
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
You have to prove it for a layman (undefined). Why doesn't it appear that way to everyone?Silver Asiatic
November 20, 2014
November
11
Nov
20
20
2014
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
Joe: //"LoL! @ Me Think- Good luck trying to prove your case.// What's to prove? It is self evident. To a layman, the coral sand appears to be far more complex than a glob of protein.gmilling
November 20, 2014
November
11
Nov
20
20
2014
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT
LoL! @ Me Think- Good luck trying to prove your case.Joe
November 20, 2014
November
11
Nov
20
20
2014
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT
niward @ 113 Take two slide - one containing coral sand and the other protein complex. Ask a layman to peer through a microscope (let's give him a cryo microscope for protein complex as optic microscope won't help). Ask him which is designed. He will invariably answer coral sand is designed because it looks far more complex than protien - which looks like a simple tubular blob even with a cryo microscope.Me_Think
November 20, 2014
November
11
Nov
20
20
2014
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic #108
niwrad did a great job in this OP — and the non-response from opponents makes that very clear.
Thanks Silver Asiatic. You are right, opponents prefer discussions in the probabilistic sections of UD where to obfuscate is easier. After all they cannot come here and say that when they open up the hood of a car and see the engine they do NOT "immediately realize that it was designed."niwrad
November 19, 2014
November
11
Nov
19
19
2014
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
Adapa, your comments were personal attacks, not scientific responses. Moreover, I've spent several years learning the 'science' of Darwinism and have come to the firm conclusion that it is a non-falsifiable pseudo-science instead of a rigid science. Due to it not having a clearly defined basis in math, no matter what empirical finding, Darwinists are always able to make up a 'just so' story as to why it does not falsify Darwinism. Dr. Hunter puts the non-falsifiable situation between Darwinism and the empirical evidence like this:
“Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.” ~ Cornelius Hunter
further notes: Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science:
1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis 2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis 3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection Are Both Grossly Inadequate as ‘creative engines’ 4. Information is not reducible to a material basis ,,, “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” - Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit
bornagain77
November 19, 2014
November
11
Nov
19
19
2014
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
Adapa:
You’d think the ID proponents here would at least make a minimal attempt at learning what actual evolutionary theory says and how the mechanisms work.
No one can find this alleged evolutionary theory so no one knows what it actually says. So please stop vomiting your nonsense.
If you wanted to have a productive, real science discussion you’d learn about the science being discussed so you could make intelligent comments.
Nice projection from the willfully ignorant evo who thinks something that does something by design is actually unguided.Joe
November 19, 2014
November
11
Nov
19
19
2014
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic It seems like you’ve been reduced to name calling “spamagain77 projectile vomiting his same mindless C&Ped crap” and calling people ignorant “a woefully scientifically ignorant layman”. Those are simply empirical observations SA. If you wanted to have a productive, real science discussion you'd learn about the science being discussed so you could make intelligent comments. But you don't.Adapa
November 19, 2014
November
11
Nov
19
19
2014
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
Adapa:
That’s exactly how it works in the real world of evolution.
Ok, I can see why you avoided this. It seems like you've been reduced to name calling "spamagain77 projectile vomiting his same mindless C&Ped crap" and calling people ignorant "a woefully scientifically ignorant layman".Silver Asiatic
November 19, 2014
November
11
Nov
19
19
2014
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
Box 82 Good post.
So, we have to focus on properties that result from wholeness, like ‘organization’. Look how it all the parts work together! How can we explain this from the parts themselves? Why would the parts do this? How would they do this? Where does the information in order to this come from?
True. ID is forced to argue from a reductionist model, bottom-up from molecules because that's the materialist model. In the end, from that view, you don't arrive at a wholeness because organization is hierarchical. There is an organizing principle at work. This is true of information. The sender can create all kinds of symbols and codes, but if the receiver doesn't know them, there's no communication. More importantly, the receiver doesn't exist merely because there is a sender. Both have to have a relationship. Even in the biosphere, we see a holistic view. There is cooperation, harmony and the "balance of nature". Individual parts cannot create this. Random chance destroys the organization, not builts it. Supposedly, bacteria evolved to create the entire biosphere of plants, birds, fish, mammals -- each creating their own organized families and structures and also living side-by-side with each other. niwrad did a great job in this OP -- and the non-response from opponents makes that very clear.Silver Asiatic
November 19, 2014
November
11
Nov
19
19
2014
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
Adapa, is ad hominem a scientific response in your book?,,, I showed your argument to be without scientific merit. The proper response would be to either counter it with evidence that shows my analysis to be wrong or to admit that you were wrong. You did neither but merely attacked me. Why is this? Don't you care for the truth in the least?bornagain77
November 19, 2014
November
11
Nov
19
19
2014
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic Supposedly, a multitude of random environmental changes (which the simulator ignored) caused humans to evolve mind/consciousness merely to be able to reproduce as well as apes (but not as well as bacteria). That’s evolutionary story-telling at its finest. Actually that's a woefully scientifically ignorant layman embarrassing himself at its finest. You'd think the ID proponents here would at least make a minimal attempt at learning what actual evolutionary theory says and how the mechanisms work. But no...Adapa
November 19, 2014
November
11
Nov
19
19
2014
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
Adapa #68
If you’re in a place where speed helps you either catch food or escape predators then speed is beneficial (gazelles, cheetahs). If you’re in an environment where speed isn’t a benefit but moving slow to conserve energy or avoid detection helps you survive then moving slow is better (tortoises).
The evolution similation:
And importantly, they also programmed the system such that the faster bots would reproduce more.
Adapa's response:
That’s exactly how it works in the real world of evolution.
Supposedly, a multitude of random environmental changes (which the simulator ignored) caused humans to evolve mind/consciousness merely to be able to reproduce as well as apes (but not as well as bacteria). That's evolutionary story-telling at its finest.Silver Asiatic
November 19, 2014
November
11
Nov
19
19
2014
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
Wouldn't be a proper UD thread without spamagain77 projectile vomiting his same mindless C&Ped crap everywhere. :)Adapa
November 19, 2014
November
11
Nov
19
19
2014
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
Also of note, although most people think bacteria and viruses are almost always harmful to humans, in reality we are very much dependent on bacteria and viruses for our survival:
NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body – June 13, 2012 Excerpt: Microbes inhabit just about every part of the human body, living on the skin, in the gut, and up the nose. Sometimes they cause sickness, but most of the time, microorganisms live in harmony with their human hosts, providing vital functions essential for human survival. http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jun2012/nhgri-13.htm We are living in a bacterial world, and it's impacting us more than previously thought - February 15, 2013 Excerpt: We often associate bacteria with disease-causing "germs" or pathogens, and bacteria are responsible for many diseases, such as tuberculosis, bubonic plague, and MRSA infections. But bacteria do many good things, too, and the recent research underlines the fact that animal life would not be the same without them.,,, I am,, convinced that the number of beneficial microbes, even very necessary microbes, is much, much greater than the number of pathogens." http://phys.org/news/2013-02-bacterial-world-impacting-previously-thought.html#ajTabs The Microbial Engines That Drive Earth’s Biogeochemical Cycles - Falkowski 2008 Excerpt: Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides. - Paul G. Falkowski - Professor Geological Sciences - Rutgers http://www.genetics.iastate.edu/delong1.pdf (Bacteriophage) Viruses in the gut protect from infection - 20 May 2013 Excerpt: Barr and his colleagues,, show that animal mucus — whether from humans, fish or corals — is loaded with bacteria-killing viruses called phages. These protect their hosts from infection by destroying incoming bacteria. In return, the phages are exposed to a steady torrent of microbes in which to reproduce. “It’s a unique form of symbiosis, between animals and viruses,” says Rotem Sorek, a microbial geneticist ,, “It’s groundbreaking,” adds Frederic Bushman, a microbiologist ,, “The idea that phage can be viewed as part of the innate immune system is original and exciting. http://www.nature.com/news/viruses-in-the-gut-protect-from-infection-1.13023
Also of related interest, a virus is far more complex than many people have ever imagined, as these following videos clearly point out:
Virus - Assembly Of A Nano-Machine - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofd_lgEymto Bacteriophage T4 DNA Packing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNQQz0NGUNQ
Here is a short video of the Bacteriophage 'landing' on a bacterium:
Bacteriophage T4 - landing - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdz9VGH8dwY
The first thought I had when I first saw the bacteriophage virus is that it looks very similar to the lunar lander of the Apollo program. The comparison is not without merit considering some of the relative distances to be traveled and the virus must somehow possess, as of yet unelucidated, orientation, guidance, docking, unloading, loading, etc... mechanisms. And please remember this level of complexity exists in a world that is far too small to be seen with the naked eye. Moreover, although Darwinist often claim that a loving God would never allow such devastating diseases as 'Malaria, Ebola, the Bubonic Plague, AIDS, and Smallpox' to exist, the fact of the matter is that Darwinists, as much as they may think that they do possess the wisdom of God, DO NOT possess the infinite wisdom of God. Of note: the problem of evil, and our reaction to tragedy in our lives, was almost central to Dr. Neal's following talk on her near death experience. At around the 15:00 - 17:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Neal spoke about how she, when in the presense of God and being able to see things from that much higher perspective, finally understood why God allows evil in the world and how our limited perspective severely clouds our judgments and our reactions to those tragedies in our lives. (The take home message is to trust God no matter what)
Dr. Mary Neal's Near-Death Experience - (Life review portion starts at the 13:00 minute mark) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=as6yslz-RDw#t=787
Music and Verse:
Kerrie Roberts- No Matter What **With Lyrics** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA3MSqufJP4 Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.
bornagain77
November 19, 2014
November
11
Nov
19
19
2014
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
As to:
Malaria, Ebola, the Bubonic Plague, AIDS, Smallpox… The Intelligent Designer sure hates humans, doesn’t he?
Apart from the fact that that is a Theological, not a scientific, argument against ID,,,, Malaria, Ebola, the Bubonic Plague, AIDS, and Smallpox actually present strong scientific evidence against neo-Darwinism as well as strong scientific evidence for the Judeo-Christian belief that we live in a fallen world. All of those diseases that were listed were, as far as I can tell, orginally benign and only recently became pathogenic, as would be held in the Judeo-Christian worldview as a starting presupposition,,
Setting a Molecular Clock for Malaria Parasites - July 8, 2010 Excerpt: The ancestors of humans acquired the parasite 2.5 million years ago. "Malaria parasites undoubtedly were relatively benign for most of that history (in humans), becoming a major disease only after the origins of agriculture and dense human populations," said Ricklefs. http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=117259 Bats and Viruses: Friend or Foe? - 2013 Viral RNA specific to both Ebola and Marburg has been identified in a number of fruit bat species from Gabon and Democratic Republic of Congo,,, ,,,bats generally harbour viruses with no clinical signs of disease.,,, it seems unlikely that bats' ability to asymptomatically carry viruses is a recently acquired trait.,,, Do Viruses Benefit the Host? The fact that bats harbour such a large number of viruses poses an important question: do these viruses provide any benefit to the host?,,, It seems plausible that some of the viruses that bats harbour may have oncolytic properties that confer antitumor activity to the host.,,, http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.ppat.1003651
Genetic study now shows that bubonic plague (Black Death) was caused by loss of genes and streamlining (genetic entropy) of a non-pathogenic bacteria:
The independent evolution of harmful organisms from one bacterial family - April 21, 2014 Excerpt: For the first time, researchers have studied the Black Death bacterium's entire family tree to fully understand how some of the family members evolve to become harmful.,, "Before this study, there was uncertainty about what path these species took to become pathogenic: had they split from a shared common pathogenic ancestor? Or had they evolved independently",,, By examining the whole genomes of both the pathogenic and non-pathogenic species, they were able to determine that many of the metabolic functions, lost by the pathogenic species, were ancestral. These functions were probably important for growth in a range of niches, and have been lost rather than gained in specific family lines in the Yersinia family. "We commonly think bacteria must gain genes to allow them to become pathogens. However, we now know that the loss of genes and the streamlining of the pathogen's metabolic capabilities are key features in the evolution of these disease-causing bacteria," http://phys.org/news/2014-04-plague-family-independent-evolution-bacterial.html
As well, HIV originated relatively recently and has a benign relationship in sooty mangabeys
"the AIDS virus originated relatively recently, as a mutation from SIV, the simian immuno-deficiency virus. According to Wikipedia, this virus was also benign in its original form:.. Unlike HIV-1 and HIV-2 infections in humans, SIV infections in their natural hosts appear in many cases to be non-pathogenic. Extensive studies in sooty mangabeys have established that SIVsmm infection does not cause any disease in these animals, despite high levels of circulating virus." https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details/#comment-448372
The origin and history of smallpox is much less well understood, but it appears that smallpox has also been benign for most of its history and is only recently pathogenic:
On the origins of smallpox - where and when did variola virus emerge? - March 2011 Excerpt: Smallpox-like skin lesions have been observed on Egyptian mummies dating from as far back as 1580 B.C yet there is no mention of the disease at all in the Old or New testaments nor even the Hippocratic texts. There was some mention of a smallpox-like disease in China and India as early as 1500 B.C but the only unmistakable description can be found from the 4th century A.D in China. Interestingly there was no mention of smallpox in the American continents nor in sub-Saharan Africa prior to European exploration.,,, A rodent origin of smallpox? We can investigate the origin of smallpox through the molecular characterisation of other poxviruses. Variolataterapox virus) and camelpox viruses and they all are more related to each other than to other poxviruses, such as monkeypox. When their genomes were compared to that of variola, a time since divergence was estimated at between 16,000 and 68,000 years ago http://ruleof6ix.fieldofscience.com/2011/03/on-origins-of-smallpox-where-and-when.html
Of related interest,
List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria: http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp
That all those diseases are only recently pathogenic is a direct contradiction to the Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' mantra which would have those microbes, due to 'survival of the fittest' competition, being pathogenic all along.
Richard Dawkins interview with a 'Darwinian' physician goes off track - video Excerpt: "I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly -- a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves -- that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we're stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.html
i.e. Since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful reproduction be realistically 'selected' for? Any other function besides reproduction, such as sight, hearing, thinking, etc.., would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successfully reproducing, and should, on a Darwinian view, be discarded as so much excess baggage since it would, sooner or later, slow down successful reproduction. But that is not what we find. Time after time We find organisms cooperating with each other in ways that have nothing to with their individual ‘fitness to reproduce’: The following Darwinian researchers were recently very ‘surprised’ when they found with microbes were cooperating instead of competing as Darwin had postulated:
Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists - April 28, 2014 Excerpt: One of Charles Darwin's hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true. Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin's theory — at least in one case. "It was completely unexpected," says Bradley Cardinale, associate professor in the University of Michigan's school of natural resources & environment. "When we saw the results, we said 'this can't be."' We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin's hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?" The researchers ,,,— were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.,,, The scientists did not set out to disprove Darwin, but, in fact, to learn more about the genetic and ecological uniqueness of fresh water green algae so they could provide conservationists with useful data for decision-making. "We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists," Cardinale says. "When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn't right, we were completely baffled.",,, Darwin "was obsessed with competition," Cardinale says. "He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don't grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected.,, "Maybe Darwin's presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong." http://www.livescience.com/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-bts.html
bornagain77
November 19, 2014
November
11
Nov
19
19
2014
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
niwrad All the ID commenters did a wonderful job to explain that evolutionary algorithms don’t create organization, that blind evolution doesn’t work, that information is not free, etc. I thank all them, they saved me a lot of work. They didn't explain it niwrad, the asserted it. The simple example of the walking robot program demonstrated the claims are wrong on all three accounts. You guys keep up the Happy Backslapping club, don't mind that real science just laughs at your silly layman's ideas then ignores them.Adapa
November 19, 2014
November
11
Nov
19
19
2014
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
niward, Who gets to decide if the artifact/process is designed or not - the layman or the scientist ? If you are hoping that scientists would use this, then you are mistaken, neither will any ID paper as CSI, dFSCI etc will be of no use. So we have one more method of detecting design that joins CSI and can't be used.Me_Think
November 19, 2014
November
11
Nov
19
19
2014
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
Let's see, if an intelligent designer designs an algorithm to solve a problem, and it does so by design, Adapa thinks that supports unguided evolution? Are our opponents really that desperate?Joe
November 19, 2014
November
11
Nov
19
19
2014
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT
Adapa
Malaria, Ebola, the Bubonic Plague, AIDS, Smallpox… The Intelligent Designer sure hates humans, doesn’t he?
Poor Adapa. I know for experience that when an ID opponent plays the evil card it is because he feels that is his last resource. To oppose moral issues to ID arguments is like to oppose sentiments to mathematical theorems. All the ID commenters did a wonderful job to explain that evolutionary algorithms don't create organization, that blind evolution doesn't work, that information is not free, etc. I thank all them, they saved me a lot of work. Adapa, good news for you, you can stop trying to defend the indefensible in any moment. Choose you when you want. It's easy, regedit your config file as I suggested you in #53, and join the ID armada. All will welcome you as an old friend. We need intelligent people. You have intelligence but unfortunately you use it in the wrong direction.niwrad
November 19, 2014
November
11
Nov
19
19
2014
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT
Box #82
Niwrad’s design arguments are very strong.
Thanks Box, obviously "my" arguments are not properly "mine", rather of all IDers, note I started from a quote by Behe. I agree with all you said. The beautiful thing is that the ID arguments based on organization are not limited. In the sense that organization may implement countless levels of increased abstraction. In my post I listed 4 basic properties of organization, but I could well add: (5) Use of feedback loops (6) Implementation of error detection/repair mechanisms (see https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-darwinism-contradiction-of-repair-systems/ ) (7) Use of information processing sub-systems and so on... Note that this hierarchy of levels somehow was crossed in history by human technology (until a certain level), and yet technology goes on... Intelligent design is so rich because its Source is infinite.niwrad
November 19, 2014
November
11
Nov
19
19
2014
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT
Adapa Unguided in a scientific sense? What is that? Last point, the program is designed to have a desired out come....... Walking robots......Andre
November 18, 2014
November
11
Nov
18
18
2014
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT
Vishnu There are no pre-specified particular objects (as acknowledged several posts ago). Of course not, they are feeding their algorithms and fitness functions with random input within limits. But all of the objects that do emerge will have pre-specified properties, specified by the designers. With absolutely no exceptions. Pre-specified limits to the morphospace in the program. No guidance or direction to any particular point in that space. Tell me, what are the pre-specified limits to the morphospace that natural evolution can explore? The only ones I can think of are maximum and minimum size limitations dictated by the laws of physics and the strength of organic materials such as bone. You’re using the word “unguided” in a sense that is idiosyncratic. I'm using the word "unguided" in the scientific, evolutionary biology sense of the word. Not externally or internally directed towards any pre-specified path or goal beyond "survive long enough to reproduce". If you're using it in some arcane engineering sense then you need to learn the proper terminology. The path of a rock bouncing down a rugged hill is still unpredictable and unguided even though it's being acted on by gravity which pulls it down. The evolutionary path of a population over time is still unpredictable and unguided even though it's being acted on by environmental selection pressures. The evolutionary path of a simulated "walker" population over time is still unpredictable and unguided even though it's being acted on by the programmed "fitness function" environmental selection pressures. Is the outcome of the slot machine guided or unguided? Neither. It's stochastic. And with that, good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow. Thanks V, you too.Adapa
November 18, 2014
November
11
Nov
18
18
2014
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT
Vishnu: The soft robot simulator is wildly incomplete when it comes to modeling real world evolution Adapa: The program was not written to model the whole biosphere, only one tiny aspect of it. Why do you keep demanding the program do something it was never written to do?
I didn't say it was and I don't demand that it does. You're the one who brought up the robot program and is using it as an example of unguided evolution. That is what I am objecting to.
A: Still wrong. There are software limits (set by whom?) to the size/functions of the morphospace (designed by whom?) being explored but no guides (except for fitness functions and other modeling limits) or pre-specified targets as to what may evolve in that space.
There are no pre-specified particular objects (as acknowledged several posts ago). Of course not, they are feeding their algorithms and fitness functions with random input within limits. But all of the objects that do emerge will have pre-specified properties, specified by the designers. With absolutely no exceptions. You will never see "wings" sprout and watch those robots "fly" around the "room." Again I ask: why not? You're using the word "unguided" in a sense that is idiosyncratic.
The wildly different varieties of “walkers” it produced show that clearly. The process itself is unguided just like in the real world.
Except for the fact that all the walkers exhibit certain pre-defined properties. And none of them ever spout "wings" and "fly." No exceptions. You're confusion guidance with predictability. Of course, there is going to be unpredictable particular objects because random values are being utilitized. However, the randomness is being guided by the algorithms and fitness parameters. It is guided evolution by definition.
Amazing that you seem incapable of understanding the difference.
The problem is your idiosyncratic way of using "unguided." Let me give you something to think about: ever been to Disneyland? They have these small motor cars you can ride in. They have steering wheels that actually work. To some degree you can steer the car to the right and to the left. But only within limits. The cars are on a track, and you cannot drive outside the boundries. If you traced the number of paths that a given car has made over its lifetime, assuming 1000 passengers a day, over 20 years, there would be 7,300,000 different paths taken by each car, as the drivers steered it around the track. Each path would be unpredictable, because of random input from the drivers, but the fitness of any given point is determined by the track. Are these 7,300,000 paths guided or unguided? Let me give you something else to think about: do you know how slot machines work? They use random number generators that are filtered thru a translation table that is weighted to different values, depending on how management wants to set the odds. The outcomes are not predictable in advance, but they will, over time, fall in line with predictable statistics determined by the translation table. Is the outcome of the slot machine guided or unguided? When you add fitness functions (of any sort) you have a guided system, by definition. That's what "guided" means. And with that, good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.Vishnu
November 18, 2014
November
11
Nov
18
18
2014
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply