Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Professor James Tour accepts Nick Matzke’s offer to explain macroevolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In my last post, A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution, I wrote about Professor James Tour, who is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world – and a Darwin skeptic. Professor Tour is not an Intelligent Design proponent, but he is openly skeptical of macroevolution, which is generally defined as “evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of species, over geologic time, resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups.” In 2001, Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, signed the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

On Professor Tour’s Website, there’s a very interesting article on evolution and creation, in which Tour declares that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint (all bold emphases below are mine – VJT):

I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.

In a recent talk, entitled, Nanotech and Jesus Christ, given on 1 November 2012 at Georgia Tech, Professor Tour revealed that he had a long-standing offer to buy lunch for anyone who would sit down and explain evolution to him, but that no-one had taken him up on his challenge:

But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can’t wave by and say, ‘This enzyme does that.’ You’ve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me.” Nobody has come forward.

The Atheist Society contacted me. They said that they will buy the lunch, and they challenged the Atheist Society, “Go down to Houston and have lunch with this guy, and talk to him.” Nobody has come!

Nick Matzke makes an offer…

Nick Matzke, who is is currently a doctoral student in evolutionary biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and who is also the former Public Information Project Director at the National Center for Science Education, declared on February 18 that he would “love to” take up Professor Tour’s offer of a free lunch, “if someone pays my airfare.”

Two offers to contribute towards the cost of Mr. Matzke’s air travel were made. Mung kindly offered to pay for part of the cost. Another contributor, groovamos, went further and declared: “I will buy a ticket for Nick to Houston and will buy a night at a hotel on a weekend.” Groovamos added that he lives in Houston and would like to attend the meeting. He also promised that he would remain silent throughout the meeting, requesting only that he be permitted to ask questions after the meeting.

… which Professor Tour accepts…

I have just received an email from Professor James Tour, in response to Nick Matzke’s invitation. I trust that he will not mind me quoting a brief excerpt, as it directly pertains to the terms of the invitation:

If you would please inform Mr. Matzke that I would be delighted to have him to lunch at the Rice faculty; my treat. I really want to learn this, and I hope he can help me. And I shall be fine with groovamos paying his airfare and joining us in the meeting, which will not extend beyond the three of us, please. I shall pay for groovamos’s lunch too as only members can pay at the faculty club. So if groovamos agrees to stay quiet and settle in as a quiet observer only, I am fine with that as long as Mr. Matzke agrees.

Professor Tour added that he would do his very best to listen attentively to Mr. Matzke’s description without interjecting, and that he would only question Mr. Matzke when he did not understand what he said. Professor Tour also expressed his deep appreciation to Mr. Matzke, saying that it was very kind of him to propose such an offer.

… on one condition!

There’s just one condition that Professor Tour attached to the meeting, however. In his email to me, he stated: “It shall not be recorded or extend beyond the three of us as this is not for show but for my edification.”

In my original invitation which I issued to Professor Tour, when I informed him that Nick Matzke would like to explain macroevolution to him in person, I naturally mentioned his wish that someone pay his airfare, but I neglected to mention his wish that the meeting be recorded. I gave Professor Tour the address of my Web post, to which the conditions of Nick Matzke’s offer were attached. However, Professor Tour is a busy man, and he informed me in his email that he has not viewed my post, as he rarely reads blogs.

Barry Arrington recently wrote a very entertaining post about the “No true Scotsman” logical fallacy. Well, Nick Matzke may not be a true Scotsman; but he is certainly a true scientist. And what distinguishes a true scientist from ordinary mortals is that he/she is passionately motivated by the pursuit of truth for its own sake. Mr. Matzke is also the the former Public Information Project Director at the National Center for Science Education. In other words, he’s someone who really cares about educating people in the truth. I take it, then, that Mr. Matzke would regard the goal of setting Professor Tour straight about evolution as a worthy objective, in and of itself. Let me add that in my experience, Mr. Matzke has always shown himself to be a true gentleman. I trust, therefore, that he would happily respect another gentleman’s wish for privacy – particularly when that gentleman is an esteemed and distinguished scientist.

Professor Tour is a very kind and courteous man, and he has also informed me that there is a chance that Mr. Matzke can get a flight to Houston from SFC in the morning, have lunch, and fly back on the same day. Professor Tour adds (and I hope he won’t mind me quoting him here): “If he needs a night here in Houston, he is welcome to stay in my home. Maybe we can have more conversations at our family dinner table. I enjoy seeing my children exposed to diverse insights from kind people.”

Finally, Professor Tour writes that Mr. Matzke is welcome to contact him directly to arrange a mutually agreeable time when they can reserve a couple of hours for a private lesson over lunch. He also suggested that Mr. Matzke contact groovamos. To facilitate matters, Professor Tour’s contact details are here and Mr. Matzke’s contact details are here. I sincerely hope that the parties concerned can make suitable arrangements.

I also asked Professor Tour about the Atheist Society’s offer to cover the cost, and he replied that the offer had been made from the national office, and not from Rice University. He added that it was made many years ago, and said that it might still be somewhere on the Web. Unfortunately I haven’t been able to locate it, so I presume that the relevant page must have been taken down.

In any case, it is now up to Mr. Matzke to respond to Professor Tour’s offer. The ball is in his court. Your move, Nick.

Comments
Alan Fox:
Personally, I am convinced that the basic laws of physics and chemistry and physics hold for living organisms as well as they do for cars.
That would mean that since cars are not reducible to the laws of physics and chemistry, then neither are living organisms. Alan Fox is a vitalist after all.Joe
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
As I said, the is not and never can be a complete suite of evidence but there is enough accumulated, especially with the relatively recent input from molecular biology and evo-devo, to support evolutionary theory as the best fit to the available evidence.
That is your opinion. However in the light of Lenski's 50,000+ generations of bacteria with not much of anything evolving, your opinion means nothing.Joe
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
Mechanical objects don’t reproduce for example.
Reproduction is the very thing that requires an explanation, Alan. And your position isn't up to the task.Joe
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
Nick Matzke:
No, the goal is to rebut the claim that “no one understands macroevolution.”
Yes, and that all depends on how "macroevolution" is defined. Change at or abobve the species level is too vague to be of any use.Joe
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
BD: What I find interesting, is the way that systems dynamics and characteristics are being responded to. Not happily interesting, but interesting. I find a pattern whereby digital code stored in string data structures in the cell is being dismissed as not information. The general -- glorified common sense, really -- requisites of multipart, complex and specific function are being brushed aside. (I guess these objectors never had a car or computer part they had to look for to get something fixed just right. I forget: "that's DIFFERENT." Sorry, I just here cited an actual true believer in the face of demonstration of a logical defect in his system, 25 years ago. I hope that helps some folks here understand why I am just a tad uneasy about the tone and substance of responses here.) Earlier, they were very dismissive of a correlate of the above, that specific function depending on co-ordination of well matched multiple parts comes in "islands" in the configuration space of possible arrangements. (I guess they have not had to deal with assembly of a bicycle or a circuit board or something like that? Or is this "that's different" again? In the teeth of the vNSR linked to metabolic automata, gating etc in the living cell?) Then it hits me, what we are dealing with is an absolute underlying affirmation: BLIND WATCHMAKER EVOLUTION DID (AND -- for many) MUST HAVE HAPPENED. So anything that does not fit with that constant star, MUST be wrong. Why? On what observational evidence? Through what dynamics demonstrated in the present that justify OOL and OO body plans by such processes? (As in the 6,000 word evidence essay challenge, coming on five months this weekend. And no, Theobald's 29 evidences does not hack it for reasons already highlighted. Starting with skipping over OOL, which is the case where the matter is plainest as self replication is off the table.) No answer. At least, no answer that really shows that such is feasible starting from that warm little pond. FSCO/I is demonstrable from intelligence, but so far not from blind chance and mechanical necessity. But in the face of an absolute commitment, it MUST be so. And so also, if we have doubts on the known nature of systems, information, thermodynamics and reaction kinetics, etc etc, it is WE who in their eyes MUST be wrong. So, I simply say: show us empirically backed dynamics tracing to chance and/or necessity competent to account for spontaneous origin of cell based life, and for body plans. (Surely, after 150 years, that is not too much to ask.) Or else, what you have is ideology -- true believerism -- not science. That is this is feeling a LOT like how it felt to deal with ideological Marxists -- who were utterly convinced that they were following genius level scientific insights, comparable to the orbiting of the planets around the sun -- in my youth. No, it is not fallacious "personal incredulity"; it is a demand for empirical warrant, from molecules up. In our case, starting with OOL. Then going on to OO body plans. If you are as sure as you are, surely, you have this in hand? If not, why not? KFkairosfocus
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
Alan,
If evolution is true, then taking two examples of distantly related extant species, (the snowdrop and the blue whale, say) the postulation is that there is an unbroken chain going up from offspring to parent from a living snowdrop where the difference between generations is less than the variation within the gene pool, until arriving at the last common ancestor we can follow an unbroken chain back down to a living blue whale. Of course the complete picture is not there in evidence but the bits that are there form an overall pattern consistent with the scenario. All those intermediate organisms must have lived and bred if evolution is true.
Quite poetic but Alan, Alan, Alan. Tell me something I do not already understand. If evolution is true, I will concede everything between "If evolution is true," and "if evolution is true." in the quote above. But, Alan, do you really do not see that you have blatantly begged the question? And twice, just for emphasis, I presume. Bruce has challenged:
If you or anyone believes that biological systems by their nature are exempt from this characteristic of large complex systems, then it is up to you (or someone) to demonstrate that this is so.
I am full agreement with his assessment of the situation. So, I ask again-- How or why is it that analogies, as you say they are, from "computer engineering have limited use in attempting to understand biological systems in general and evolution in particular."? Or, if you prefer, from an understanding of "biological systems in general and evolution in particular" point of view-- How or why are biological systems different than all the other complex systems I have encountered in my experience in that they can tolerate minor haphasard changes while marching along "an unbroken chain going up from offspring to parent from a living snowdrop where the difference between generations is less than the variation within the gene pool, until arriving at the last common ancestor we can follow an unbroken chain back down to a living blue whale."? Why does my experience not apply to such systems. Stephensterusjon
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
…preclude the possibility that major modifications can be accomplished via a series of small incremental changes if there is a requirement that the system continue to work after each such change at least as well as it did prior to the change. Well, if that were true, evolution as an explanation for life’s diversity on Earth would fail utterly. Unfortunately that is just an assertion of incredulity.
No, it is an assertion based on an understanding of the nature of large, complex systems.
If evolution is true, then taking two examples of distantly related extant species, (the snowdrop and the blue whale, say) the postulation is that there is an unbroken chain going up from offspring to parent from a living snowdrop where the difference between generations is less than the variation within the gene pool, until arriving at the last common ancestor we can follow an unbroken chain back down to a living blue whale. Of course the complete picture is not there in evidence but the bits that are there form an overall pattern consistent with the scenario. All those intermediate organisms must have lived and bred if evolution is true.
Your use of the term "evolution" I assume refers to the neo-Darwinian synthesis. The whole question we are debating here is whether the neo-Darwinian synthesis is in fact true, which is to say is a valid explanation for the immense diversity of life observed currently on earth and in the fossil record. My argument from systems analysis is that it is not a valid explanation, or is at best mere speculation. Your statement, predicated on "evolution" being "true", therefore clearly begs the question.Bruce David
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
And as we all enjoy the company and conversation, the facts of bipedalism gets blown up.... http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/another_difficu069411.html I love this!!!!Andre
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
I think the last supporter of Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monster” hypothesis was John A. Davison.
Ah, I've seen some more recent workers daring to use the s word. But my point was that the evidence of the fossils is neutral with regard to theories of gradual evolution. It's consistent with it, but since it's consistent with many other things too it can't strengthen the case much more than "There was indeed a Roman Empire" strengthens the case for Christianity. At least Christians don't have to make quest for the Holy Spectacles - that would indeed shake my faith.Jon Garvey
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
Hi Nick, You've written about your puzzlement that Professor James Tour would want to discuss macroevolution from a chemical perspective. You've also wondered aloud whether Tour is sufficiently educated about evolution to make it worth your while attempting to enlighten him. Allow me to make a practical suggestion, Nick. Pick up the phone and call him. I'd be happy to help you by writing a script of how the conversation might go. The telephone rings at the Smalley Institute for Nanoscale Science & Technology. Professor James Tour (henceforth JT), who happens to be right there, picks up the phone. JT: Hello, Smalley Institute. James Tour speaking. NM: Professor Tour? Hi. My name's Nick Matzke. Are you free at the moment? JT: Nick! I've been expecting your call. By the way, please call me Jim. It's a pleasure to finally hear from you. Now, what can I do for you? NM: First, I'd just like to say that I was deeply impressed with your kind offer to let me stay at your home. Actually, groovamos will be paying for my hotel accommodation in Houston, but I'd love to meet your family over dinner. JT: We'd love to have you over, Nick. My children love meeting interesting people. By the way, is there anything you wanted to discuss regarding our meeting over lunch? NM: Yes. That's why I called. I need to know a little about your background first. I'd like to ask you about how much reading you've done. You say on your Website that you've read only half a dozen, or maybe a dozen books on the creation/evolution debate. Would you mind if I ask what they are? JT: Not at all, Nick. The books I have read are good books. On the pro-evolution side, I've read Mayr's One Long Argument, John Maynard Smith's The Theory of Evolution, Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology, Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker and The Greatest Show on Earth, and Li's Molecular Evolution. On the other side, I've read Origins of Life and Who Was Adam? by Hugh Ross and Fuz Rana, Mike Behe's Darwin's Black Box, Mike Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Dembski and Wells' The Design of Life and Steve Meyer's Signature in the Cell. Of course, I've read Darwin's works many times, as well as the other classic authors in the field, such as Fisher and Haldane, but that goes without saying. I've also tried to keep up with the evolution-creation debate on the Internet, including the many responses to Intelligent Design proponents. And of course, as a chemist, I've read dozens of scientific papers regarding proposals for the origin of life. But they're papers, not books, so I didn't count those. NM: Have you read Theobald's 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution? JT: Of course. Everyone I know tells me I should start there, if I want to properly inform myself about evolution, so I perused it very carefully. Do you have any other questions, Nick? NM: Yes. I was a little perplexed that you wanted someone to explain macroevolution to you at the chemical level. Why do you want to take it down to that level, Jim? It seems too low to be helpful. JT: Let me illustrate. You wrote a paper for Nature back in 2006 with Mark Pallen on the origin of bacterial flagella, didn't you? NM: That's right. JT: Excellent paper, by the way. I love reading that kind of stuff. NM: Glad you liked it. JT: In your paper, you talked a lot about homologies between the different proteins found in the bacterial flagellum. Now I think you'll agree that the process by which the bacterial flagellum originated would count as an example of macroevolutionary change, right? NM: OK. JT: That's the kind of thing I want to ask you about. You talked about "proof of concept" in your paper. One thing I'd like to ask you about, when we meet up, is the feasibility of getting from an ancestral protein to one of its homologs. Now I'm not asking you for a detailed account: I realize that's unfair, given our current state of knowledge. But as a chemist, I have some questions about that, which I'd like to ask you. I'd also like to ask you about hox and parahox genes: how they originated and how they subsequently mutated so as to give rise to the various animal body plans we find today. There are chemically related questions that need to be addressed there, too. Finally, I just wanted to say, Nick, that I'm not out to score points in our lunchtime discussion. And I'm not trying to trap you into making some damaging admission: I'm a scientist, not a lawyer. I'm here to listen. Now, I'm sure you have a strong scientific background in evolutionary biology, and you can also draw on the accumulated wisdom of the people you've worked with in the field. That's an advantage I don't have. NM: All right. I appreciate that. Judging from certain remarks you've made, you seem to be laboring under a few misconceptions - JT: Then I'd be delighted to have you set me straight, Nick. NM: Just one more thing, Jim. I wanted to record the conversation, so that I could use it to educate other people who might have queries like your own. JT: I appreciate your concern, Nick, but here's where I stand. The purpose of our little get-together is for you to enlighten me. Now, in order for me to dispel any misunderstandings I might have, it is essential that I have the freedom to ask any question I see fit - no matter how ill-informed it may seem to you. That's how people learn: by asking silly questions, and then they end up asking intelligent ones. You know, one of the things they used to say about President Reagan was that he could sit down with an expert in any field, and chat with them, and after about five minutes, he'd be asking really deep, insightful questions. Well, I'm not President Reagan, Nick, but I'm a deep thinker, and if you're willing to put up with my asking a few ignorant questions, I might end up changing your perspective on certain issues - not by what I have to say, but by what I have to ask. Remember, I won't be debating with you. I'm here to listen. NM: Fair enough, Jim. Do you mind if I take notes of our conversation? JT: No, I think that's a reasonable request, so long as they're of a general nature. I believe that private conversations are just that - private. I don't want to read some blow-by-blow account of what was discussed. I just don't see that as helpful. But if you want to set up a special Web page of Frequently Asked Questions by scientific critics of evolution, and if you wish to throw in some of the questions I asked without mentioning me by name, then I have no problem with that. NM: Thank you. I think that's an excellent idea. JT: Oh, and there's one more thing I'd like to point out. Perhaps you're wondering: why should I fly all the way to Houston to educate just one guy, even if he is a qualified scientist? NM: That thought had crossed my mind, yes. JT: Here's why. There are people who read and listen to what I have to say. If you can persuade me that macroevolution makes good scientific sense, then I'll do my utmost to inform other Christians I know that the case for neo-Darwinian evolution rests on solid ground. I promise you that. Because I have no objection in principle to evolution. As a Christian, I have a very simple, straightforward faith: if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, then you will be saved. Regarding Genesis, I'd be the first one to admit that it's not always clear, and I'm not going to dogmatically declare that it rules out Darwinian evolution. Yes, I believe that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve. But as to the details of how that happened, I try to keep an open mind. NM: You've been very helpful in answering my queries, Jim, and I'll be in touch with you over the next few weeks regarding my travel arrangements. For the time being, though, it seems as if I won't be able to visit you until June. Is that OK? JT: Certainly, Nick. I'm in no hurry, and I realize you're busy with your research. Come whenever it's convenient for you. As for me, I love my job, and seldom take vacations, so I'll be here, even in summer. NM: I'm glad to hear that. Well, I'd better let you get back to work, Jim. It's been a pleasure talking to you. JT: Likewise. Bye, Nick! NM: Bye, Jim. Talk to you soon. ==================== There, now. That wasn't so hard, was it, Nick?vjtorley
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
Or even stone spectacles. Though tone spectacles might prove useful to some commenters!Alan Fox
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Not if there were some saltational form of evolution in operation.
I think the last supporter of Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" hypothesis was John A. Davison. “Those golden plates must have existed and been genuinely Egyptian, if Mormonism is true.” And what about the tone spectacles? As I said, the is not and never can be a complete suite of evidence but there is enough accumulated, especially with the relatively recent input from molecular biology and evo-devo, to support evolutionary theory as the best fit to the available evidence. The floor is open for anyone to propose a better theory. Maybe we could hear an "Intelligent Design" theory one day? Who knows?Alan Fox
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
Hi Alan - fine, thanks.
All those intermediate organisms must have lived and bred if evolution is true.
Not if there were some saltational form of evolution in operation. So your statement is actually shorthand for "All those intermediate organisms must have lived and bred if Neo-Darwinian or some other type of gradualist evolution, logically including divinely directed evolution, is true." That is a true argument from faith, for the existing evidence would support a whole range of alternative mechanisms should gradualist evolution happen not to be true. The argument seems to me to have the same form (and force) as "Those golden plates must have existed and been genuinely Egyptian, if Mormonism is true." The argument is valid, but is totally dependent on golden plates actually being found (or alternatively proof of Mormonism established apart from golden plates, in which case their genuineness could be inferred - but in that case their value as evidence would have been nil).Jon Garvey
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
@ sterosjon
...a series of small incremental changes if there is a requirement that the system continue to work after each such change at least as well as it did prior to the change.
If evolution is true, then taking two examples of distantly related extant species, (the snowdrop and the blue whale, say) the postulation is that there is an unbroken chain going up from offspring to parent from a living snowdrop where the difference between generations is less than the variation within the gene pool, until arriving at the last common ancestor we can follow an unbroken chain back down to a living blue whale. Of course the complete picture is not there in evidence but the bits that are there form an overall pattern consistent with the scenario. All those intermediate organisms must have lived and bred if evolution is true.Alan Fox
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
Alan, Personally, I never doubted that you think the laws of physics and chemistry applied to living systems. Tha is precisely why I am at a loss to understand why the analagy, as you put it, that Bruce articulated is inappropriate. As for "Well, if that were true, evolution as an explanation for life’s diversity on Earth would fail utterly. Unfortunately that is just an assertion of incredulity." in response to Bruce-- I have not seen an adequate justification to negate his confidence "that the fundamental similarities among all large, complex systems (which are not at all superficial, as KF has pointed out above) preclude the possibility that major modifications can be accomplished via a series of small incremental changes if there is a requirement that the system continue to work after each such change at least as well as it did prior to the change." Without an adequate justification to overturn his statement, your retort has a misplaced "if" and in itself becomes an argument from gullibility, in my opinion. Stephensterusjon
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
The problem is, I suppose, that the alternative to an argument from incredulity is an argument from faith. Either faith or incredulity can be justified depending on the nature of the evidence.
Hi, Jon. Keeping well, I hope. Well, I guess we all believe what we do for the reasons that make sense to us. That's why it's good to exchange views sometimes. It tests one's own ideas in a broader and, hopefully, more objective context.Alan Fox
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
Which reminds me, Alan Fox- I had intended to ask you previously: What are your thoughts on the (what I for one perceive to be apparent and extreme) bio-centricity of the universe? Just curious.
If you mean do I think life on Earth is unique, I have no idea and neither does anyone else. There is absolutely no evidence, as yet, to indicate whether life is common in the universe or we are indeed unique. We await results from Mars and SETI. On googling "bio-centricity", I suspect you may mean something else!Alan Fox
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Alan The problem is, I suppose, that the alternative to an argument from incredulity is an argument from faith. Either faith or incredulity can be justified depending on the nature of the evidence.Jon Garvey
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
...there is a requirement that the system continue to work after each such change at least as well as it did prior to the change.
And don't forget there is also the requirement for each organism to be viable for each moment of its existence from zygote to adult.Alan Fox
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
Oops missed a tag. 1st paragraph is quoting Bruce David.Alan Fox
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
...preclude the possibility that major modifications can be accomplished via a series of small incremental changes if there is a requirement that the system continue to work after each such change at least as well as it did prior to the change. Well, if that were true, evolution as an explanation for life's diversity on Earth would fail utterly. Unfortunately that is just an assertion of incredulity.Alan Fox
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
If you or anyone believes that biological systems by their nature are exempt from this characteristic of large complex systems, then it is up to you (or someone) to demonstrate that this is so.
Personally, I am convinced that the basic laws of physics and chemistry and physics hold for living organisms as well as they do for cars.Alan Fox
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
Folks: The adverting to a "difference" between living and non-living systems based on self replication is of course one reason why I have prioritised -- along with other design thinkers and commenters -- the OOL situation. Second, the objectors should be familiar with the observation since Paley [Ch II Nat Theol, which usually does not come up in discussions], that the ADDITIONALITY of a self replication facility ADDS to the complex integration and co-ordination of the system. Going further, with the observation since von Neumann, that the self replication facility integrated with an entity that carries out separate function is likely to fit into his kinematic self replicator model, we see that code, code readers, position-arm devices to effect operations etc all have to be integrated with the main entity. Indeed, to create a novel body plan with its development process or the equivalent, will require that the capacity be created for function in the body, AND that it be integrated successfully, step by step with the self replication facility. Thus, the concern on system integration is multiplied by the addition of self replication, not removed. The reason this is not readily apparent, is that we do not tend to discuss the self replication process in that way, and we don't realise as a result that the same problems are happening all over again. The real answer to all this from the blind watchmaker viewpoint, is that there needs to be empirical observation showing a case of origin of a major novel body plan feature by incremental blind chance variation and differential reproductive success. The problem being -- as Tour is in part hinting at -- that his seems to be conspicuously missing in action, with particular reference to molecular level. KFkairosfocus
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
Evolution manages very well as a work-in-progress that continues to match available evidence without my input.
Whether this is true is exactly the question at issue, and your statement begs it.
I would simply say that a living cell or living organism bears only superficial resemblance to a car or a computer. Mechanical objects don’t reproduce for example. A car does not carry the instructions to build another copy of itself that it can pass on. There are no embryo cars to grow into sexually active cars; cars don’t heal when injured, are not a seething maelström of chemical reactions at the sub-cellular level. Other than that and lots more, I see what you mean.
By focusing on the differences between biological and human produced systems, you ignore the point I and others are making here, which is that the fundamental similarities among all large, complex systems (which are not at all superficial, as KF has pointed out above) preclude the possibility that major modifications can be accomplished via a series of small incremental changes if there is a requirement that the system continue to work after each such change at least as well as it did prior to the change. If you or anyone believes that biological systems by their nature are exempt from this characteristic of large complex systems, then it is up to you (or someone) to demonstrate that this is so. To my knowledge, no one anywhere has come forth with such a demonstration. There is no step by step explanation, for example, of how a bacterial flagellum could have arisen that includes the requisite chemical (DNA and protein, etc.) changes and a demonstration of how each step in the process would have enhanced the fitness of the organism or was at least neutral in that regard. There is no Darwinian explanation of how a creature with a bellows lung could have evolved into one with an avian lung, nor does anyone have a clue how sexual reproduction could have evolved incrementally, nor insect metamorphosis, nor the complex multi-host life cycles of parasites such as the sheep liver fluke. If you know of any such, even one such, I would like very much to hear of it.Bruce David
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
Alan Fox "I would simply say that a living cell or living organism bears only superficial resemblance to a car or a computer." Yes because car or a computer is inferior to a simplest cell. *sterusjon* Nice to have another control systems guy. You'll probably know this: "All stable processes we shall predict. All unstable processes we shall control." John von Neumann (our motto)Eugen
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
Alan, Thanks for the reply. I understand that you have no obligation to me to champion evolution. However, you are the one that told Bruce that he was incorrect to apply his experience to "biological systems in general and evolution in particular." I was just wondering what your justification was. You have attempted a justification by noting the differences in the self-replicating and self-repairing capabilities of living systems. But, I think you are missing my point. I am (as well as Bruce, I think,) puzzling over the transformation of a simple protocell system to the extremely complex system that is me. Not the survival of a solitary individual anywhere along the chain. I am referring, by way of analogy, to the increased capability of a computer program from "hello, world" to a word processor with spellcheck, auto-formatting, grammar check and such. Minor errors, and random insertions of code, even snippets of code that is to be found in the final product, just does not work if each revision/complier iteration (analogous to self-replication) must be at least as functional at something (notepad followed by wordpad, for instance)as its immediate predecessor. The code must be incorpoated in a careful and systematic way. In my experience, minute bits and pieces, added and rearranged willy-nilly does not work. Does it in yours? Why is the world of evolution different from my world? Why is the analogy defective? Stephensterusjon
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
MrMosis @#64 I've seen the obvious differences between living systems and human machines used in different ways, most commonly to discredit the idea of design. However it occurs to me that by the same token one ought to say that living cells are so different from chemical systems that it's specious to draw any comparisons between the two - looking for chemical explanations of life is exactly as unacceptable, or acceptable, as looking at design explanations. Likewise seeing life in reductionist functional terms should also be outlawed, seeing that the whole living cells screams out "holism".Jon Garvey
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
No one knows who the first human being to think of God was much less the motivations for doing so.
True - but we do know that the first people to write about it were the Sumerians, and they didn't use their gods to explain what they couldn't understand. I doubt Fenman went into ANE literature much, any more than "god hypothesis" Sagan did.Jon Garvey
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
It does seem that biological systems have an inherent plasticity- in many senses. That does make them different from engineered mechanical systems. So just imagine the engineering aptitude required to design self-replicating entities, made out of mere matter (like all of our other machines), with such manifest robustness, redundancy, tolerances, plasticity, etc! I once imagined that if a group of scientists and engineers put their heads together and got to work developing a self-replicating, autonomous machine- from scratch- free from all constraints and biases, using any materials they desired, that when they were done, they'd look up from their work for the first time and tell us there was only one workable design they could up with. We'd take a look at their achievement and say, "Congratulations gentlemen. You've just re-invented the cell." My ongoing research increasingly confirms to my mind that such thoughts may not be too far off. Which reminds me, Alan Fox- I had intended to ask you previously: What are your thoughts on the (what I for one perceive to be apparent and extreme) bio-centricity of the universe? Just curious.MrMosis
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
<blockquote cite="God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand." I know Feynman is considered like A god among naturalists but his logic was pretty poor when it comes to religious matters (he himself admitted to being uneducated about it). The claim that God was invented to explain the unknown is gibberish. No one knows who the first human being to think of God was much less the motivations for doing so.Sorroto
February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply