Responding to Moran – Is “Unguided” Part of Modern Evolutionary Theory?

_{Jonathan Bartlett

August 12, 2012

Intelligent Design}

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

I am always aghast that in the 21st century people still make the claim that mutations are unguided. This is a hold-over idea from before the discovery of DNA, simply because some mutations were found to occur independently of selection.

However, modern evidence has showed that mutations are actually in large part due to mechanisms geared for adaptive purposes, just like the rest of biology. And, just like hearts have heart attacks, mutation systems can break down, too, and lead to disease. Just like bacteria, we discovered mutations first by noting the ones that were causing disease, but with every closer look we see that these are the exception rather than the rule.

To point to a simple example (and one that is even often used as definitive evidence of the efficacy of random mutations!) let’s look at the somatic hypermutation process in the immune system. When a new bacteria invades the body and causes an infection, the body must generate a new gene. So what does it do? It takes a close-fitting antibody gene and mutates it. Now, first of all, you should notice that the mutations only happen in the correct gene – the antibody gene. That’s 1,200 base pairs out of 3,000,000,000. But that’s not all – it also focuses mutations on the part of the gene that attaches to the antigen, not the part that signals the cell (because otherwise it wouldn’t signal the cell correctly). So, that’s roughly 600 base pairs out of 3,000,000,000. The mutation system is highly selective of the sites that it mutates, skipping over the cell signaling systems and focusing on the part that is specific to the antigen.

So, therefore, in this scenario (which is one of the best-studied), teleology (goal-directedness) accounts for 99.99998% of the specificity of the mutation, and randomness / unguidedness / happenstance accounts for 0.00002% of it. Yet somehow the myth persists that we have good evidence that mutations are random.

For more information on this issue, you might be interested in a UD series I did on the modern synthesis and the video below:

—–

P.S. I originally tried to post this comment on Moran’s blog itself, but was having technical difficulties. So, if it winds up in his moderation queue three or four times under different accounts, I’m sorry, I was just trying to get it posted.

Comments

timothya - My side note about intentionality was just that - a side note. It is *irrelevant* to this discussion whether or not organisms have intentionality. My definition of purpose was exactly what I had said before - that it was fit to a function.
Defined as you do it, “purposefulness” is simply an attribute of a system that is apparently “fit to its purpose”, which is precisely what evolutionary biology predicts about systems selected by their environment (system components that reduce an organism’s purposefulness will be selected out, those that increase it will be selected in).
You are conflating several things - first of all, the purposefulness of the organism and the purposefulness of the evolutionary process. My point was that, contra the modern synthesis, the evolutionary mechanism itself is purposeful. As Larry Moran points out for us, the modern synthesis excludes purpose from the evolutionary process itself. The conjecture of many evolutionists is that natural selection allows evolution to create purposeful structures without having a purpose itself. However, the key link that is used to defend this conjecture - that the mutation process is haphazard - is simply incorrect. There are stochastic pieces to it, and some mutations do come in that are haphazard, but mostly it operates purposefully just like the rest of the organism. In addition to the experimental evidence that has been pointing against the conjecture that the evolutionary mechanism is haphazard, no evolutionary biologist that I am aware of has proposed a model that would make even the idea that natural selection could produce purposeful mechanisms plausible. Prior to natural selection, purposeful mechanism was indicative of design. The only reason why anyone doubted this line of reasoning was because it was thought that Darwin produced a mechanism which could mimic purpose without design. However, now that we see that he hasn't, then there is no evidence left against the original intuition. Note that it is still true that purposeful mechanisms may have evolved, but, given the nature of the evolutionary process, it is likely that if they evolved, they evolved according to their programmed directions.johnnyb_{August 15, 2012
August
08
Aug
15
15
2012
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

BA, that quote doesn't say the mutations are directed... because they aren't.wd400_{August 15, 2012
August
08
Aug
15
15
2012
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

This video may be of 'random' interest to some:
"Random: A Carefully Selected Word" Dr. Michael Behe - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-MuGUVWeFs
bornagain77_{August 15, 2012
August
08
Aug
15
15
2012
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT}

wd400 claims:
The somatic mutations you are talking about are not directed.
and yet:
Response to Edward Max on TalkOrigins Immunity Article Donald L. Ewert - PhD. immunologist Excerpt: In contrast to neo-Darwinism, the process of introducing un-programmed changes in the DNA during SHM (somatic hypermutatio) is tightly regulated. Unless one is willing to accept that the entire process of evolution was pre-programmed (orthogenesis), as Applegate may, there is no room for teleology in modern evolutionary theory. The fallacy of the argument is that both the computer in Dawkins's scenario and the process of hypermutation show evidence of a design which permits the mutations to achieve a defined objective. Chance is bounded by the limits of the system in which it operates. Furthermore no significant new information is being generated by SHM. The nucleotide changes are limited to replacing amino acids that alter the electric forces between two proteins. The specificity of the antigen receptor must remain unaltered or the B cell would be destroyed by cell-suicide or apoptosis. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/response_to_edward_max_on_talk040661.html
Thus wd400 you have highly sophisticated machinery of the cell making tightly regulated changes to the DNA, moreover no significant information is created. Thus there are two problems with your claim that the SHM are random (not directed). 1. SHM ARE directed! and 2. Even if they were truly random and undirected mutations in the Darwinian sense (i.e. randomly caused by replication error, radiation, entropic decay, etc.. instead of imposed by the sophisticated machinery of the cell) you still have not demonstrated that what you claim are purely Darwinian processes can generate any non-trivial functional information above that which is already present in the system. Notes:
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds: Doug Axe: Excerpt: The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723 Correcting Four Misconceptions about my 2004 Article in JMB — May 4th, 2011 by Douglas Axe http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/04/correcting-four-misconceptions-about-my-2004-article-in-jmb/ ID Scientist Douglas Axe Responds to His Critics - June 2011 - Audio Podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-06-01T15_59_43-07_00 Doug Axe Knows His Work Better Than Steve Matheson Excerpt: Regardless of how the trials are performed, the answer ends up being at least half of the total number of password possibilities, which is the staggering figure of 10^77 (written out as 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000). Armed with this calculation, you should be very confident in your skepticism, because a 1 in 10^77 chance of success is, for all practical purposes, no chance of success. My experimentally based estimate of the rarity of functional proteins produced that same figure, making these likewise apparently beyond the reach of chance. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/doug_axe_knows_his_work_better035561.html Evolution vs. Functional Proteins - Doug Axe - Video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018222
Moreover wd400, even if you could explain the origination of a single novel functional protein domain by Darwinian processes, you still have not even scratched the surface of 'body-plan information':
Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681 Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,, ‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ - Stephen Meyer - (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate - 2009) Epigenetics and the "Piano" Metaphor - January 2012 Excerpt: And this is only the construction of proteins we're talking about. It leaves out of the picture entirely the higher-level components -- tissues, organs, the whole body plan that draws all the lower-level stuff together into a coherent, functioning form. What we should really be talking about is not a lone piano but a vast orchestra under the directing guidance of an unknown conductor fulfilling an artistic vision, organizing and transcending the music of the assembly of individual players. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/epigenetics_and054731.html The Mysterious Epigenome. What lies beyond DNA - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpXs8uShFMo
bornagain77_{August 15, 2012
August
08
Aug
15
15
2012
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT}

JohnnyB posted this: "It is indicative of begin *purposeful*. I don’t mean to claim that the organism itself has intentionality (though it is possible – many microbiologists have been moving in this direction)." Let us leave aside the question of who these microbiologists are, and what are their published research papers. JohnnyB then posted this: "But if you want a more modern way of inferring teleology, you can use Active Information, which compares the efficacy of a search process to the likely efficacy of that same search if it did not have intentionality." Well which is it? Defined as you do it, "purposefulness" is simply an attribute of a system that is apparently "fit to its purpose", which is precisely what evolutionary biology predicts about systems selected by their environment (system components that reduce an organism's purposefulness will be selected out, those that increase it will be selected in). But then (18 minutes later) you claim to be able to identify "intentionality", which seems to imply that you think that the agent involved (the actual biological organism) is able to predict (pre-dict before the event) the appropriate system response to a future challenge. It is probably just me, but I am confused about what you are actually claiming.timothya_{August 15, 2012
August
08
Aug
15
15
2012
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PDT}

wd400:
Evolutionary biology tells us how we can get apparent purpose as an a postori result of selection, without the requirement for goal-seeking by an organism or a designer.
That is the evidence-free propaganda, anyway.Joe_{August 14, 2012
August
08
Aug
14
14
2012
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

OT: JohnnyB, you may appreciate this video: Evolution Impossible! - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIae8PPg-fEbornagain77_{August 14, 2012
August
08
Aug
14
14
2012
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

1. Look up what begging the question means. 2. The somatic mutations you are talking about are not directed. 3. You really don't get the maths if you NFL has anything to say on evolution (although, you're with Dembski on that one).wd400_{August 14, 2012
August
08
Aug
14
14
2012
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

wd400 - "Evolutionary biology tells us how we can get apparent purpose as an a postori result of selection" No it doesn't. It presents a speculation on this, but the evidence is lacking. There is evidence of *change*, but not evidence of purpose coming as a result of selection. In nearly every case where we have beneficial mutations, what we find are specific mechanisms which generate them. Thus, the idea that these are the a posteriori result of selection is falsified, because as we can see in this particular example, it is the mechanism doing 99.99992% of the work, and mutation/selection doing 0.00008% of the work. It's important, but it's a relatively minor part of the process. "Just going from apparent purpose to design is begging the questions" No, it isn't. It might, perhaps, not be sufficient for proof, but apparent purpose is in fact direct evidence for design. Begging the question would be that we had no evidence for design, so we just assumed it. But apparent design *is* evidence for design. Darwinism was *thought* to be a defeater for this argument, but as modern mutation experiments show, it fails miserably in that regard, by many orders of magnitude. Can you present either (a) direct evidence that haphazard changes coupled with natural selection can produce something? Or (b) can you at least present a model to validate your claim? I've pointed out experiment and mathematical reasons why fully mechanized processes do not work. Additionally, there are computational reasons as well. In other words, design is required in the causal chain. If you would like to propose evidence for your idea, I encourage you to do so! "That’s like saying the krebs cycle is teleological because it knows it’s going to get sugars at some stage" Again, you are confusing teleology with consciousness. See again my comment about machines. Just to point out, Ernst Mayr would have viewed the Krebs cycle as teleological. He just mistakenly thought that evolution had the power to produce teleological mechanisms from non-teleological ones, which the No Free Lunch theorem and Active Information show mathematically to be a non-starter.johnnyb_{August 14, 2012
August
08
Aug
14
14
2012
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

Johnnyb, This is ridiculous. Evolutionary biology tells us how we can get apparent purpose as an a postori result of selection, without the requirement for goal-seeking by an organism or a designer. Just going from apparent purpose to design is begging the questions The somatic mutation system is not directed. That's like saying the krebs cycle is teleological because it knows it's going to get sugars at some stage.wd400_{August 14, 2012
August
08
Aug
14
14
2012
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

Please do yourself a favor by taking it off the list, putting it in your hands and (start) reading it. Just sayin'...Joe_{August 14, 2012
August
08
Aug
14
14
2012
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

Joe - No, I haven't read "Not by Chance", but I've read a lot of Spetner's online stuff. It's on my reading list.johnnyb_{August 14, 2012
August
08
Aug
14
14
2012
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

“I am using Aristotle’s method of inferring teleology…” Biologists have done quite a lot of work in the last 2300 years, you might want to catch up…
So what modern method of inferring teleology would you like me to use? First of all, the notion that ongoing research immediately invalidates anything written before the 1850s is simply ludicrous. Good ideas last - if you have a problem with them, you should cite the problem, not the age of the idea. But in any case, this is precisely the notion of teleological that Ernst Mayr uses, for instance. He claims that evolution is a non-teleological process precisely because mutations are not oriented in a way that contribute to the adaptation of the organism. He is wrong on mutations, but his use of criteria of teleology is precisely the same one used by Aristotle. But if you want a more modern way of inferring teleology, you can use Active Information, which compares the efficacy of a search process to the likely efficacy of that same search if it did not have intentionality. An overview of the concept is here, and the theoretical reasoning why a more teleological search process cannot be created by a non-teleological one is here. Now, if only we had a good way of applying this to biology. Oh wait. We do. It turns out that the hypothesis that mutations are random with respect to function in the somatic hypermutation system is wrong by at least 10 orders of magnitude (22.7 bits). It's actually more like 66 bits (30 orders of magnitude) because the average number of mutations required for creating a match is 3 (going from memory), and the orders of magnitude are additive for every mutation. So, (a) yes, Aristotle's definition is still in use, and (b) it has been made more rigorous by others, and (c) with the more rigorous definition, we can see just how ludicrous is the idea that the mutational process is haphazard.johnnyb_{August 14, 2012
August
08
Aug
14
14
2012
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

"How and why is it indicative of intention?" It is indicative of begin *purposeful*. I don't mean to claim that the organism itself has intentionality (though it is possible - many microbiologists have been moving in this direction). Think about a machine - its actions are purposeful but not intentional - the machine is merely constructed to bring about its end, but doesn't know anything about it. In life, since organisms are reproducing, their actions can be viewed as purposeful if they contribute towards their own ends. It is in that specific way that mutational mechanisms were thought of as purposeless by the modern synthesis - they didn't contribute towards function as an intrinsic part of their operation, but the ones that happened to not cause the organism to die collected to produce design-looking things.johnnyb_{August 14, 2012
August
08
Aug
14
14
2012
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

Evolutionism is the premise that all of life's diversity owes it collective common ancestry to some unknown populations of prokaryotic-like organisms via accumulations of genetic accidents.Joe_{August 14, 2012
August
08
Aug
14
14
2012
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

I probably shouldn't ask this but... Joe, what is evolutionism? Do you just meant evolutionary biology?wd400_{August 14, 2012
August
08
Aug
14
14
2012
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

corrected link: Creed – Six Feet - music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnkuBUAwfe0bornagain77_{August 14, 2012
August
08
Aug
14
14
2012
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

wd400:
Biologists have done quite a lot of work in the last 2300 years, you might want to catch up…
And they STILL haven't found any evidence that supports evolutionism. How much longer are we going to have to wait before they realize evolutionism is a worthless heuristic?Joe_{August 14, 2012
August
08
Aug
14
14
2012
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

As well, it is interesting to note where the maximum source of entropic randomness in the universe is centralized:
Thermodynamics – 3.1 Entropy Excerpt: Entropy – A measure of the amount of randomness or disorder in a system. http://www.saskschools.ca/curr_content/chem30_05/1_energy/energy3_1.htm Evolution is a Fact, Just Like Gravity is a Fact! UhOh! - January 2010 Excerpt: The results of this paper suggest gravity arises as an entropic force, once space and time themselves have emerged. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-is-a-fact-just-like-gravity-is-a-fact-uhoh/ Entropy of the Universe – Hugh Ross – May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe “But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space.” Roger Penrose - How Special Was The Big Bang?
further notes:
Blackholes - The neo-Darwinian ‘god of entropic randomness’ which can create all things (at least according to them) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fxhJEGNeEQ_sn4ngQWmeBt1YuyOs8AQcUrzBRo7wISw/edit Is Randomness really the rational alternative to the ‘First Mover’ of Theists? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pSSfbR2QFZ5JAJTOsrEXQDqkJ_6zPTvYNGwcI4YDvRY/edit
Verse and music:
Romans 8:18-21 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. Creed – Six Feet http://www.youtube.com/v/aQ9GrZ3CEyY&fs=1&source=uds&autoplay=1
bornagain77_{August 14, 2012
August
08
Aug
14
14
2012
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

In fact, this 'lack of a guarantee' that randomness brings to the epistemological enterprise in science, of trusting our perceptions and reasoning in science to be trustworthy in the first place, even extends into evolutionary naturalism itself;
Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? ('inconsistent identity' of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw
related notes:
Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description) http://vimeo.com/32145998 Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? - referenced article https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit Alan Turing & Kurt Godel - Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition - video (notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8516356/
Moreover, The atheist Ludwig Boltzmann's story on his work on entropy is very interesting to note and is picked up here at the 29:00 minute mark of this following video
BBC-Dangerous Knowledge http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8492625684649921614
Yet what is interesting is that Ludwig Boltzmann, being a materialist/atheist, and him thinking that the 'random probability' he had worked out for entropy was the be all end all for his work with entropy (since random chance was his creator in his view of reality) failed to search out the universal constant for entropy. Which is something that the Christian Theist, Max Planck, notes the peculiar omission of here:
Boltzmann equation An important equation in statistical mechanics that connects entropy (S) with molecular disorder (W). It can be written: S = k log W where k is Boltzmann's constant. The Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann first linked entropy and probability in 1877. However, the equation as shown, involving a specific constant, was first written down by Max Planck, the father of quantum mechanics in 1900. In his 1918 Nobel Prize lecture, Planck said: This constant is often referred to as Boltzmann's constant, although, to my knowledge, Boltzmann himself never introduced it – a peculiar state of affairs, which can be explained by the fact that Boltzmann, as appears from his occasional utterances, never gave thought to the possibility of carrying out an exact measurement of the constant. http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/Boltzmann_equation.html
Thus the Christian Theist is right to ask the atheist, as does the following author:
Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness - Talbott - Fall 2011 Excerpt: The situation calls to mind a widely circulated cartoon by Sidney Harris, which shows two scientists in front of a blackboard on which a body of theory has been traced out with the usual tangle of symbols, arrows, equations, and so on. But there’s a gap in the reasoning at one point, filled by the words, “Then a miracle occurs.” And the one scientist is saying to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.” In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.” This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?” http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness
etc.. etc.. etc..bornagain77_{August 14, 2012
August
08
Aug
14
14
2012
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT}

A little background on the entire concept of 'randomness' is worthwhile to consider. When Darwinists use the word 'random' in conjunction with Darwinian evolution they mean that the change was,,,
Unguided or Not? How Do Darwinian Evolutionists Define Their Theory? Casey Luskin - August 2012 Excerpt: a review of how mainstream biology textbooks define Darwinian evolution reveals it is defined as a "random," "blind," "uncaring," "heartless," "undirected," "purposeless," and "chance" process that acts "without plan" or "any goals," where we are "not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design," and "a god of design and purpose is not necessary." This is not simply my opinion--this is a review of biology textbook definitions of neo-Darwinian theory. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/unguided_or_not063191.html
Yet this metaphysical Darwinian claim of completely unguided 'random' processes might rightly strike the Theist as 'begging the question' since the Theists believes that even these seemingly random events in the universe are ordained by God:
Jonah 1:7 “Then the sailors said to each other, “Come, let us cast lots to find out who is responsible for this calamity.” They cast lots and the lot fell on Jonah.” 1 Samuel 14:42 “Saul said, “Cast the lot between me and Jonathan my son.” And Jonathan was taken.” Acts 1:26 “26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.” Proverbs 16:33 “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.”
And indeed when one looks for the ultimate source of randomness in the universe, the Theist is found to be correct in his presupposition that even the supposedly random events of the universe are ordained of God. To prove this point, usually when someone builds a random number generator for use in computers, one looks to the maximum source of entropy so as to generate the maximum amount of randomness in his Random Number Generator:
Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator Excerpt: From an information theoretic point of view, the amount of randomness, the entropy that can be generated is equal to the entropy provided by the system. But sometimes, in practical situations, more random numbers are needed than there is entropy available. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographically_secure_pseudorandom_number_generator
Yet entropy is found to be, by far, the most finely tuned of initial conditions of the beginning of the universe:
Roger Penrose discusses initial entropy of the universe. - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhGdVMBk6Zo The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose Excerpt: "The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the "source" of the Second Law (Entropy)." How special was the big bang? - Roger Penrose Excerpt: This now tells us how precise the Creator's aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123. (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 - 1989)
This number is gargantuan. If this number were written out in its entirety, 1 with 10^123 zeros to the right, it could not be written on a piece of paper the size of the entire visible universe, even if a number were written down on each sub-atomic particle in the entire universe, since the universe only has 10^80 sub-atomic particles in it. Moreover, if the atheist tries to postulate randomness as the cause for such 'ordered randomness' at the beginning of the universe, he winds up in epistemological failure:
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video http://vimeo.com/34468027
Here is the last power-point slide of the preceding video:
The End Of Materialism? * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all. * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle. * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemologically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.
bornagain77_{August 14, 2012
August
08
Aug
14
14
2012
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT}

wd400 posted: "Biologists have done quite a lot of work in the last 2300 years, you might want to catch up…" So have baraminologists. To no useful purpose.timothya_{August 14, 2012
August
08
Aug
14
14
2012
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT}

"“I am using Aristotle’s method of inferring teleology..." Biologists have done quite a lot of work in the last 2300 years, you might want to catch up...wd400_{August 14, 2012
August
08
Aug
14
14
2012
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT}

JohhnyB posted: "I am using Aristotle’s method of inferring teleology. If the functioning of a part of an organism has a regularly associated benefit to the organism, this is indicative of teleology." How and why is it indicative of intention?timothya_{August 14, 2012
August
08
Aug
14
14
2012
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT}

JohnnyB- Have you read "Not By Chance" by Dr Lee Spetner?Joe_{August 13, 2012
August
08
Aug
13
13
2012
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

sergio - For a more in-depth discussion of the relationship between teleology and mutations, you might take look at this paper I wrote a few years ago. It separates out mutations into design-consistent mutations and design-inconsistent mutations, and discusses ways of determining the difference between the two.johnnyb_{August 13, 2012
August
08
Aug
13
13
2012
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

"Note of course that the specific immune response derived from an infection event is not heritable. Unless you are making a case for the ideas of M Lamarck." There is some evidence for this. Again, Blanden, Steele, and others have done work on this - not conclusive, but certainly interesting. But that is totally beside the point. "As A Gene pointed out above, several alternative mutational outcomes are possible at any genetic locus, but only one represents a successful immune response." True. No argument there. "The human immune system has evolved a capability to rapidly shuffle through random mutations in highly variable parts of its antibody genes." Actually, to say that it "has evolved" is merely begging the question, and, without a mechanism attached, is pretty much devoid of content. If you look at the genes for this, they are actually formatted, with formatting codes demarcating the beginning and ending of fragments. So, this formatting code would have had to evolve at multiple locations simultaneously at the exact same time that the RAG genes needed to process these evolved. In other words, for this to work, there would have to be hundreds of coordinated evolutionary events! "Given this ability, we should not be surprised that it eventually hits on the specific mutation that represents success" Yes, that's basically the definition of having a guided mechanism. "(hint: if it didn’t have this ability, it would probably be dead). No teleology required." Where did you remove the teleology? You simply described the teleology, and then said it wasn't required. Describing something doesn't make it stop existing. You certainly haven't showed how natural selection could have done this. "Your version of teleology appears to boil down to saying “a particular outcome happened, therefore it must have been intended”. " Quite the opposite. I am using Aristotle's method of inferring teleology. If the functioning of a part of an organism has a regularly associated benefit to the organism, this is indicative of teleology. So, for the case of bacteria, we see that of all the places where mutations might occur, they happen much more often in locations that help it invade new hosts and adapt to new energy sources than in the housekeeping genes. This is the essence of teleological mutations.johnnyb_{August 13, 2012
August
08
Aug
13
13
2012
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

A Gene - Modulating the mutation rate is usually meant to imply simply a global increase or decrease in mutagenesis. My point was that this is highly targeted, not just a global increase or decrease in rate. "so there’s a higher chance that the A will mutate, but it could mutate into a T, C or C. " I'm not disagreeing with this at all. This is just the 0.00002% of the targeting that is randomized, as opposed to the 99.99998% that is targeted. Perhaps I need to bump that up to 0.00008% randomized, but I don't think that affects the discussion much.johnnyb_{August 13, 2012
August
08
Aug
13
13
2012
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

Whether the Darwinists are being purposely disingenuous to the point that JohnnyB is making I do not know, but if not, it is hard to see how someone could be so blind as to miss the clear point JohnnyB has made.
The mutational mechanisms *focus* the mutations on the correct 600 base pairs out of 3,000,000,000.
This clearly is not a truly random mutational process as is required in the theoretical foundation of neo-Darwinism, for a truly random mutational process would have a equal chance of changing any nucleotide in the genome.,,, In fact a few years ago on BioLogos some Darwinists had mistakenly claimed the immune system as proof of 'evolution in action'. Here are some responses to that mistaken claim:
Falk’s fallacy - Feb. 2010 Excerpt: This (the immune system) is one of the most amazing processes ever described.,,, Whatever may be said about it, it is a highly regulated, specified, directed and choreographed process. It is obviously the product of overwhelmingly brilliant design,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/falks-falacy/ Response to Kathryn Applegate - Caroline Crocker PhD.- cell biologist and immunologist - October 2010 Excerpt: Diversity of antibodies generated by B cells is due to deliberate, cell-engineered changes in the DNA sequence, not random mutations. In fact, I have never before heard the process whereby functional antibodies are formed (before they encounter antigen) described as mutation. And it is well-known that the appearance of functionality as a result of a mistake-mutation is extremely rare. Of course, after encountering antigen the hypervariable regions of the antibody DNA do undergo somatic hypermutation, but again this is in particular places and is controlled by enzymes.,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/comments-on-kathryn-applegate%E2%80%99s-may-posts-on-biologos/ Generation of Antibody Diversity is Unlike Darwinian Evolution - microbiologist Don Ewert - November 2010 Excerpt: The evidence from decades of research reveals a complex network of highly regulated processes of gene expression that leave very little to chance, but permit the generation of receptor diversity without damaging the function of the immunoglobulin protein or doing damage to other sites in the genome. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/response_to_edward_max_on_talk040661.html Evolutionists Are Now Saying That Evolution Created an Optimized Evolutionary Process (For Immunity System) - Cornelius Hunter - July 2012 Excerpt: This type of problem, known as the calculus of variations, is important in many engineering problems. It also applies to our immune system. About ten years ago researchers used Pontryagin’s maximum principle—an important concept in engineering control theory involving the calculus of variations—to predict how our immune system works. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/07/evolutionists-are-now-saying-that.html
In fact, neo-Darwinists tried to use the immune system as evidence for evolution in the Dover trial:
"A Masterful Feat of Courtroom Deception": Immunologist Donald Ewert on Dover Trial - audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-20T15_01_03-08_00
In this following podcast, Casey Luskin interviews microbiologist and immunologist Donald Ewert about his previous work as associate editor for the journal Development and Comparitive Immunology, where he realized that the papers published were comparative studies that had nothing to do with evolution at all.
What Does Evolution Have to Do With Immunology? Not Much - April 2011 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-04-06T11_39_03-07_00
Of related note: Immunity bacteria are shown to be species specific (Regardless of the surprising result, Darwinists still insist evolution did it.)
Our Microbes, Ourselves: Billions of Bacteria Within, Essential for Immune Function, Are Ours Alone - ScienceDaily (June 21, 2012) Excerpt: Chung repeated the experiment, only this time populating a third group of mice with microbes common to rats. This new group showed the same immune system deficiency as the humanized mice. "I was very surprised to see that," Chung said. "Naturally, I would have expected more of a half-way response." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120621130643.htm
In fact the deception that neo-Darwinists have tried to pull off with the immune system is very similar to the deception they have tried to pull off with evolutionary algorithms. Here is a very informative interview with Dr. Marks on that whole line of reasoning:
"Darwin or Design" with Dr. Tom Woodward with guest Dr. Robert J. Marks II - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yoj9xo0YsOQ
And let's not forget the waves that Dr. Shapiro is making in this area of 'random mutations':
Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century - James A. Shapiro - 2009 Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112). http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.AnnNYAcadSciMS.RevisitingCentral%20Dogma.pdf
A few comments from the 'non-Darwinian' evolutionist, James A. Shapiro PhD. Genetics, on 'random mutation':
Shapiro on Random Mutation: "What I ask others interested in evolution to give up is the notion of random accidental mutation." -Comment section "Establishing that teleological questions are critical will itself take a considerable effort because we need to overcome the long-held but purely philosophical (and illogical) assertion that functional creativity can result from random changes." - per Huffington Post
bornagain77_{August 13, 2012
August
08
Aug
13
13
2012
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

JohnnyB said: "“Evasion” and “infection” imply that the bacteria are necessarily doing something bad." You may think so, but I certainly don't. Infection and immune responses are survival strategies that, if absent, would likely prevent either the pathogen or the target from surviving to pass on their genes. Note of course that the specific immune response derived from an infection event is not heritable. Unless you are making a case for the ideas of M Lamarck. As A Gene pointed out above, several alternative mutational outcomes are possible at any genetic locus, but only one represents a successful immune response. The human immune system has evolved a capability to rapidly shuffle through random mutations in highly variable parts of its antibody genes. Given this ability, we should not be surprised that it eventually hits on the specific mutation that represents success (hint: if it didn't have this ability, it would probably be dead). No teleology required. I must say I like the idea of a teleological bacterium. I thought you were making a joke, but now I see you are serious. Your version of teleology appears to boil down to saying "a particular outcome happened, therefore it must have been intended". That kind of post-hoc reasoning can be used to justify pretty much any result, which is a polite way of saying it explains nothing.timothya_{August 13, 2012
August
08
Aug
13
13
2012
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply