Pierre-Paul Grassé, Daydreaming, and Darwinian Depression

_{Gil Dodgen

January 7, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

melancholia

What gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution? The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Durer’s “Melancholia” is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.

Comments

The original post is a straw man of the evolutionary process. Gil, I think you don't believe in evolution because you don't understand it.Retroman_{January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

SCheesman: It’s a tautology.
This is not a tautology: Natural Selection is the correlation betweeen heritable variations and differential reproductive potential.
SCheesman: Is natural selection able to overcome the odds against producing beneficial mutations in DNA code in order to produce new function? Zachriel: Yes, of course. Nylonase is a simple case. SCheesman: That’s well within the “edge”,
It's a novel function that evolved. Of course it's within the "edge." What did you think evolution was about?
Zachriel: As we can see the incremental changes involved in complex changes in the historical record, such as the mammalian middle ear, it is clear that complex adaptations can and have occurred. SCheesman: This begs the question. We all accept the fossil record as observed. Changes have obviously occurred. But we are not talking about the evolution of existing structures, but the emergence of novel ones.
It's the evolution of a sensitive and complex system through cooption and optimization. What did you think evolution was about? - After all, humans are 'just' elaborated Deuterostomes. A tube with appendages to stuff food into one end. Microevolution.Zachriel_{January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

Mr ScottAndrews, Correct!Nakashima_{January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

No, it would be foresight if there were changes in anticipation of changes in the environment. So it follows that if the variations do not target any specific benefit, then they are in fact random. Thus we have variation which is random and capable of nothing, and selection which is a tautological cause and effect rolled into one. Together, they fight crime.ScottAndrews_{January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

Mr ScottAndrews, No, it would be foresight if there were changes in anticipation of changes in the environment. Evolutin is always fighting the last war, attempting to increase reproductive success in the next generation with what worked best in the last generation. That's not foresight.Nakashima_{January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: Mutations are random only with respect to fitness. I am referring to changes to the DNA code at the "letter" level, e.g. substitutions between CGAT or additions/insertions.That is, after all, where protein evolution occurs, no? The software knows nothing about fitness, but of course selection will certainly apply. Yes, of course. Nylonase is a simple case. That's well within the "edge", and the exception that proves the rule. We grant you that. Perhaps you have a complex case? One that shows the full evolution of a new protein? That's the bone of contention. Micro/macro yada yada. As we can see the incremental changes involved in complex changes in the historical record, such as the mammalian middle ear, it is clear that complex adaptations can and have occurred. This begs the question. We all accept the fossil record as observed. Changes have obviously occurred. But we are not talking about the evolution of existing structures, but the emergence of novel ones.SCheesman_{January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

Increased success in reproduction in the generation immediately following? That would require foresight. It's the mutation that is random, and selection that determines which survives. Except that survival is selection. Evolution is the selection of survivors and the survival of the selected. It's a tautology.ScottAndrews_{January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

Mr Murray, What is the definite aim, reason or pattern produced by evolution? Increased success in reproduction in the generation immediately following?Nakashima_{January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

William J. Murray: Def. of “random”:
Random has a technical meaning of lack of bias or correlation.
William J. Murray: What is the definite aim, reason or pattern produced by evolution?
Natural Selection is the correlation betweeen heritable traits and differential reproductive potential.Zachriel_{January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Zachriel said: "Evolution isn't random." Def. of "random": proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers. What is the definite aim, reason or pattern produced by evolution?William J. Murray_{January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

SCheesman: Evolution may not be random, but are you implying that mutations in DNA are not? That is what the post is considering.
The original post used the term "random evolution." Generously, that would mean neutral drift. No one claims that complex adaptations are due solely to neutral drift.
SCheesman: Evolution may not be random, but are you implying that mutations in DNA are not?
Mutations are random only with respect to fitness.
SCheesman: Is natural selection able to overcome the odds against producing beneficial mutations in DNA code in order to produce new function?
Yes, of course. Nylonase is a simple case.
SCheesman: It is all a question of the nature of the “solution space”. ID says sparse, Darwinian evolution requires dense and spannable by small changes.
As we can see the incremental changes involved in complex changes in the historical record, such as the mammalian middle ear, it is clear that complex adaptations can and have occurred.Zachriel_{January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: Evolution isn’t random. Evolution may not be random, but are you implying that mutations in DNA are not? That is what the post is considering. Is natural selection able to overcome the odds against producing beneficial mutations in DNA code in order to produce new function? That is the crux of the matter. It is all a question of the nature of the "solution space". ID says sparse, Darwinian evolution requires dense and spannable by small changes.SCheesman_{January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

Seversky You are correct that the theory of evolution does not propose that the eye appeared "de novo". It would hardly be a theory of evolution then. I don't believe any of the posts above implied it did, and certainly not Gil's original post. However, for the standard theory of evolution to be true, it must be reducible to incremental changes in the coding of the DNA (and who knows but additional changes at various higher levels of organization in the cell and above yet to be discovered). It is the probability of creating multiple new functional proteins able to work together from errors or mutations in the DNA from one generation to the next that is being regarded with incredulity. If it can ever be demonstrated that any molecular machine can be "coded" in such an incremental, developmental manner, with working solutions strung like thousands of pearls on a necklace from the "no machine" to the "functioning machine" state then ID has no more case. As a developer myself, I remain sceptical, but I'm willing to be convinced.SCheesman_{January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

GilDodgen: What gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution?
Evolution isn't random.
GilDodgen: The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Durer’s “Melancholia” is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye;
Interestingly, if we were to calculate the probability of Durer being conceived based on the numbers of sperms involved over several preceding generations (even granting each coupling was foreordained), it would also be infinitesimal. Therefore, either Durur wasn't born, or he was destined to be born. Accordingly, so is every individual snail and every tadpole and every sparrow.
Matthew 10: Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.
Zachriel_{January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

And where, precisely, in the theory of evolution is it proposed that a complex structure like the eye appeared de novo? If I remember correctly, it is Christian belief that holds that God created these things out of nothing and nowhere, not science.Seversky_{January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

StuartHarris Are you responding to my post? I am genuinely confused, because I never mentioned ONE protein, or any sentence in the library of congress, and I made no mention of probabilistic resources (which I believe, as most here do, are finite and can be estimated). I merely thought that it was rather unlikely for dust to form a recognizable image with the detail shown above, and that it's unlikelihood might indeed be comparable to that of the eye's coding arising by chance.SCheesman_{January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

Pierre Grasse, great non-darwinian zoologist, author of "L'évolution du vivant". But I do not see any connections with the picture. Any secret meaning?VMartin_{January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

SCheesman, ONE protein? ONE sentence, out of one book, in the Library of Congress? One must have a belief in an infinitely deep pool of probabilistic resources to think that has meaning.StuartHarris_{January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT}

You forgot the information in the 4x4 magic square in the upper right, which includes the 1514 date of the engraving.GilDodgen_{January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

Just to be argumentative, I expect the odds are pretty comparable. The image above stores as a 96kB JPEG image, which, as a compressed format, is a pretty fair estimate of the stored information. As each amino acid in a protein represents about 4 bits of information (assuming 1 in 20 odds), this corresponds to around 24K bases, or 100-200 moderately sized proteins, which is likely (and note the generous use of the word) a fair fraction of what must be required to construct at least a simple eye. Not to take away from the overall point...SCheesman_{January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply