Simply Not Credible

_{Gil Dodgen

September 19, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

This thread inspired the following observations.

The bottom line is that none of Dawkins’ computer programs have any relevance to biological evolution, because of this in WEASEL1:
Target:Text=’METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL’;
and this in WEASEL2:
WRITELN(’Type target phrase in capital letters’);
READLN(TARGET);

which allows the user to enter the “target” phrase. No search is required, because the solution has been provided in advance. These programs are just hideously inefficient means of printing out what could have been printed out when the program launched. The information for the solution was explicitly supplied by the programmer. Once this is recognized, further conversation about the relevance of the programs to biological evolution is no more illuminating than conjecture about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

The bottom line is that the proposed Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection makes no sense on its face, as an explanation for the kinds of highly sophisticated information-processing engineering we see in living systems. It is a claim that an inherently entropic process can produce unlimited neg-entropic results, from the lowest to the highest levels (the cell to the piano concerti of Rachmaninoff). The magic wand of “deep time” (which is not very deep in terms of probabilistic resources) cannot be waved to make this transparent lunacy believable.

The Darwinian mechanism as an explanation for all of life is simply not credible. Most people have enough sense to recognize this, which is why the consensus “scientists” — with all their prestige, academic credentials, and incestuous self-congratulation — are having such a hard time convincing people that they have it all figured out, when they obviously don’t.

Comments

Rob, Show us a credible case where active information sufficient to get to a case of 1,000 bits or so worth of functionally specific complex information arose by chance + necessity without mind. Every evo simulation and every GA composed by programmers stands in the other column as empirical evidence that mind creates active info. Then, apply an inference to best explanation on the empirical evidence. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler:
Essentially, all languages consist of two things: symbols, and rules for the use of those symbols. To use English for example, we have a 26 character alphabet and a bunch of rules. The characters are combined in various ways to form words which are then combined in various ways to form sentences and paragraphs and so on in order to convey a message.
Not all languages have rules in the sense of syntax restrictions. In an optimally efficient language, any string of symbols is grammatical. The set of nonnegative decimal integers is an example, i.e. any string over the alphabet {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} is a valid number.R0b_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

Correction in 86: "it has applicability" --> "it has limited applicability"R0b_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

R0b #86
The intent of the [Weasel] program was to illustrate cumulative selection.
Also cumulative selection has no target. (The target of "survival" is too unspecified and non complex to deserve the status of "target".) Also a simulator of cumulative selection must not have the target declared in its first instruction. So the incoherence of Weasel program remains. When mutations happen in reptiles in the real word mutations don’t think: "we must concur to morph our host into a bird". When cumulative selection cumulates on the same reptiles selection doesn’t think: "I must select these reptiles to morph them into birds". So why does Weasel program specify the target of a "bird" in its initial declarations?
My only point is that they [Evolutionary Informatics Lab] see biological evolution as a search for a target, which they must in order to apply their active information measure to biological evolution.
The fact that they state a target to measure the active information needed to search it doesn’t imply they see evolution as teleological. Their reasoning is something like this: if evolution had a target T1, to reach it, it should generate I1 amount of information; if evolution had a target T2, to reach it, it should generate I2 amount of information, and so on. Of course they know that unguided evolution cannot generate new information but only scramble the old one.niwrad_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler:
For without language there is no information. This is a matter of definition.
Can you tell us exactly what definition you're referring to? Shannon, Kolmogorov, and even Dembski all define information in ways that don't require language.R0b_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

Dawkins is correct if says that Darwinian evolution has no target. But then he cannot declare a target at the beginning of its evolution simulator as he did (this is Gil’s position).
The intent of the program was to illustrate cumulative selection, which it did. Whether the cumulative selection in WEASEL is sufficiently analogous to the cumulative selection in natural evolution has been debated here. I personally think that the analogy is appropriate, although like all analogies, it has applicability.
Besides its researchers study how much intelligent assistance is necessary to obtain a goal in a given type of search with certain efficiency.
To my knowledge, they have not studied how much intelligent assistance is necessary to achieve a certain efficiency. They have claimed that active information comes only from intelligence, which is not the same as studying the question. My only point is that they see biological evolution as a search for a target, which they must in order to apply their active information measure to biological evolution.R0b_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee [from 50] "Gee, that explanation throws altruism in the human species right out the window." Not at all. I do not deny humans have a concept of morality and there are indeed Darwinian explainations, but for the moment I would like an example of true altruism from outside the human race. Can you give me an example of habitual behaviour from a species of non-human animal which is truly altristic? " The only reason Mother Theresa cooperated by sacrificing for the needs of Calcutta’s poorest, was to gain a survival advantage – even though she died in poverty." Human altruism is a different kettle of fish because we are both intelligent enough and comfortably shielded enough from the harsh realities of everyday natural selection to be able to ponder morality. I can go into it if you wish, but suffice to state here you have evaded my point. [from 53] Thankyou for the explaination, but one brief passage jumped out at me: "Fitness’ again is a vague term, and does not explain how Darwinian processes could at all be concerned with it other than for ’survival.’ Survival itself is a goal, but why do blind consecutive selective processes desire or even require survival?" Blind consecutive selection processes desire/require survival for genes to be passed on. The genes which do nothing to help their own survival will simply not have survived. Imagine the very first replicators bobbing around in the primordial soup. It simply logically follows that those that were slightly better at replicating themselves... well... replicated themselves better. They grew more populous and then as competition for food and resources heated up, those replicators that were better suited to compete were generally more sucessful. From then on started the struggle for survival that powers natural selection. So the instict to survive does not imply a divine purpose. [from 54] "Darwinists are so vague about this in order to escape the realization that evolution has a goal." Does it really? What is this goal? [from 66] "Darwinian evolution is not entropic – it defies the law of entropy. Another reason why we reject it." What is the law of entropy? I suspect you are about to quote the second law of thermodynamics, which does not apply to the natural world, because the planet is not a closed system - it is constantly recieving energy from the sun.Ritchie_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

Joseph [from 52] I realise you are having many conversations at once now, but still: "Fitness (biology): Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central concept in evolutionary theory. It describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype to reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the individual’s genes in all the genes of the next generation. fitness: In biology, fitness is the number of offspring of a particular organism which survive to reproductive age. In other words, fitness may be thought of as the ability of an organism to pass on its genes." These do not fit your defintion of fitness. Look again. Neither one is saying that fitness is defined by the number of offspring an individual has! I cannot say how you could say otherwise. Perhaps reading the article I provided for you would help you to make sense of the confusion?Ritchie_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

Mark @63 "For example, duplication of chromosomes has lead to simple changes in some plant species in one generation (although it would take many generations for a population of the new species to become established). But duplication of chromosomes would never lead to a complex new organ. This would require gradual steps." I regret bringing Dawkins' inadequate reasoning skills into this. The conversation is not about how 'evolution' is or isn't gradual (and I did not quote him out of context, he's irrational and can't even see it) but whether or not it is true. I am making the strongest possible claim about evolution and saying that not only is it not true, it's impossible for it to be true. IT CAN'T ACCOUNT FOR INFORMATION. But information is what must be explained. All this talk about genetic drift, mutations, 'natural selection,' blah blah blah is irrelevant. It's got nothing to do with the real issue. Any time "we" get pulled into a discussion about any of these things we have already given away the store. They CAN'T explain information. Case closed.tgpeeler_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

Re #78 Are you asking how one goes about falsifying the Design Inference? That seems like a strange request. The inference only obtains after first giving chance and necessity the benefit of the doubt. If it is even remotely possible that chance could have accomplished it, then design is ruled out. Is there some other falsification you are seeking beyond this? Why would design be ruled out just because chance could accomplish it? The designer has undefined powers and motives and might have wanted to produce a solution which could also have occurred by chance. I’m curious about the falsifiability of the common descent inference: the inference that two organisms that are similar (in DNA, morphology, viral insertions, whatever) are likely related. Uhm - need to be precise here. Are you talking about the theory that all life is descended from a common ancestor? This could be falsified by repeated rabbits in the precambrian (one such episode would probably not be enough). Or are you talking about the specific hypothesis that two organisms with similar characteristics are closely related? This is falsified by studying the history and distribution of those characteristics.Mark Frank_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

@Mark Frank Are you asking how one goes about falsifying the Design Inference? That seems like a strange request. The inference only obtains after first giving chance and necessity the benefit of the doubt. If it is even remotely possible that chance could have accomplished it, then design is ruled out. Is there some other falsification you are seeking beyond this? If so, then I'm curious about the falsifiability of the common descent inference: the inference that two organisms that are similar (in DNA, morphology, viral insertions, whatever) are likely related. I don't mean to imply that this is not a valid inference, only to point out that, to my mind, it shares quite a bit with the design inference.Phinehas_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

#69 It is a struggle to keep these discussions within bounds so forgive some editing. I suggested a number of outcomes which if true would mean Darwinism was false. I am not sure if you accept or reject this? It is hardly relevant that in fact these outcomes are not true. You suggested these outcomes would falsify ID: If mutations presented bizarre and non-functional anomalies such that organisms eventually decay into disorderly blobs of mostly jelly. We know nothing of the motives of the designer. How do we know that this is not what it wants to achieve? If the earth was bombarded every 100 or so years by space junk, causing the extinction of all life, and requiring evolution to start all over again. I fail to say why this accident would falsify ID. We don't know the designers motives or powers so we don't know if this space junk was under its control and part of the design. If not, then that is just a fact the designer has to deal with. If it is under its control maybe that's the effect it wants - rapid evolution and destruction. We know nothing of its motives. To do so would be a religious assumption (see Cornelius).Mark Frank_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

Mosepf sed:
Now, about that organism that is not designed and one that is. You admitted that some are designed and some are not.
I called him a liar. To try to refute my claim he? posts:
I asked But you’d agree that not every instance of apparent design is in fact an example of explicit design right? You responded True. However every instance of apparent design needs to be investigated to see what caused it.
The two are not the same. So I thank you for proving that you are dishonest. Now how about telling us how to test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved via random mutations and natural selection or admit that you are a fraud.Joseph_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

Joseph
There wasn’t anything in your post that discussed random mutations and natural selection. Therefor it didn’t cover it. IOW you are a liar.
No, because the Red Queen is nothing to do with random mutations and natural selection. I suggest you read more.
You are ignorant and don’t even know it.
From you I take that as a compliment of the highest order.
Even YECs accept that evolution occurs.
I did not realize you were a YEC. If I had I would not have started any conversation with you in the first place.
Another lie. I take it that is all you have- lies and nonsense. Why do you buttheads even bother if lies and nonsense are the best you have?
Another lie? Let me reproduce the exchange in full then. I asked
But you’d agree that not every instance of apparent design is in fact an example of explicit design right?
You responded
True. However every instance of apparent design needs to be investigated to see what caused it.
You said true. You agreed with me. You agreed that apparent design (design that simply looks designed by a intelligence) exists. And now, somehow, I am the liar. Interesting. I think it's obvious to anybody who has read this thread and our exchange who is precisely what.Moseph_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

TGP & CY: Good stuff. (I or others might want to debate minor points here or there, but that would just be distractive.) Keep it coming. GEM of TKI PS: For the curious, I have commented on the W1 and W2 Weasel code, here. Bottomline is that both exhibit targetted search omn mere proximity not with in-built requirement of first achieving complex function. (Observed life starts at ~ 600 - 1,000 k bits of algorithmically functional, specific, code beading, language based information. How many big bang universes -- and we have to think of the varieties of physics possible . . . -- would you have to run for how long to get to terrestrial planets or other credible environments that set up warm little ponds etc and on a reasonable odds, form FSCI-based first life spontaneously? How many Big bangs do we have evidence of? Then, sincve novel body plans run to something like 10 - 100+ millions of bits of additinal functionally specific informaiton, how many of these spontaneous life forming sub cosmi would get tot he sort of biodiversity we see here on earth? And, what is the evidence for a super-cosmos in which so many sub-cosmi could form to nmake it an observable experience? is not the alternative that we need only account for the observed cosmos, and the observed factt hat informaiton occurs as a product of mind, to get to a mind who created a cosmos habitable for life and formed life in it, including what we see?) PPS: On Crystals etc, cf Leslie Orgel 1973: ______________ >> In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [ Leslie Orgel (1973). The Origins of Life, p. 189. HT Wikipedia] >> ________________ --> Information in the relevant sense is highly contingent, not driven by forces of mechanical necessity --> Similarly, it is not merely stochastically contingent like tossing a die. --> it requries a contgext of rules, symbols and in the relevant case machines that serve as readers, and effectors. --> Worse, as he machines are in a self-replicating entity, we need blueprint or tapes storing the code for even the readers and effectors, we need existing readers and effectors, and we need sequential conrtrol and related physical-spatial organisation [right parts, right places and times . . . ] etc --> We have not yet created a self-replicating machine, by Von Neumann showed what was needed, and it is an extension of what we have done with info systems. So, we have good reason to see that mind can do it; but none to see that chance + blind mechanical forces can. --> hence the major gaps in OOL and body plan level macroevolution as explanations. "Chance of the gaps" and just-so stories backed up by a priori Lewontinian evolutionary materialism will no longer do.kairosfocus_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Moseph, For example how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" by random mutations and natural selection?Joseph_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

Moseph, There wasn't anything in your post that discussed random mutations and natural selection. Therefor it didn't cover it. IOW you are a liar. All the cheetah has to be is faster than its prey. And even that isn’t necessary. Ya see a bigger cheetah can just take the kill of the faster cheetah.
When you say things like this you are debating EVOLUTION, even if you don’t realize it.
You are ignorant and don't even know it. Evolution is not being debated. Even YECs accept that evolution occurs.
Now, about that organism that is not designed and one that is. You admitted that some are designed and some are not.
Another lie. I take it that is all you have- lies and nonsense. Why do you buttheads even bother if lies and nonsense are the best you have?Joseph_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

Joseph
You didn’t provide a testable hypothesis based on RM & NS.
I did. That you choose not to see that it is is not my problem. Rather, your problem is that you want to play scientist but having found a lab coat your are left wondering what your should do next.
All the cheetah has to be is faster than its prey. And even that isn’t necessary. Ya see a bigger cheetah can just take the kill of the faster cheetah.
When you say things like this you are debating EVOLUTION, even if you don't realize it. Now, about that organism that is not designed and one that is. You admitted that some are designed and some are not. Now when asked to name one of each you dissemble. I will allow you to retract your original statement however, to save face. Just please don't repeat the claim again.Moseph_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

Moseph, You didn't provide a testable hypothesis based on RM & NS. EVOLUTION is NOT being debated. ID is NOT anti-evolution. But thank you for exposing your dishoesty and ignorance.Joseph_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

Mark, See, I think this is a problem with the concept of falsifiability as it pertains to historical sceintific theories, such as ID and ToE. Anything imaginable that is counter to the theory can prove whether it is falsifiable or not. You state that if the earth should prove to be a few thousand years old, that this falsifies evolution. True, but the earth hasn't been proven to be a few thousand years old - so by that the theory still stands. On the other hand, there are some Darwinists who assert that ID is not falsifiable because it infers supernatural forces. I refer you to Philosopher of Science (and atheist) Bradley Monton on a podcast at ID The Future, who counters this argument quite well: http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2009-09-14T16_29_59-07_00 What really renders evolution unfalsifiable by scinetific standards, is the contention among its proponents that it is fact beyond provision. This assertion is based on the same kinds of criteria, which make more rigorous theories falsifiable - such as thermodynamics, but minus one important factor; that it can be tested in a lab. So by the assertaion that the Darwinian ToE is fact, not provisional theory, it is not falsifiable in the strictest scientific sense, because it is no longer subject to rigorous testing. Doesn't make it not true though, and this is the important point. Falsifiability is less meaningful in dealing with historical scientific theories, than with more rigorous lab-testable theories, except in relation to the parts of those theories that can be lab-tested. This is why I stated that ID theory is more falsifiable by those standards than ToE. Again - it doesn't make ID more factual than ToE (they're vastly different theories), just that there are certain aspects of ID theory that can in principle be tested in the lab. You can't test random mutation and natural selection in the lab because of the time constraints. You can test agency in the lab, it's done all the time - although I don't know how this might be beneficial for ID. My contention is that we should abandon falsifiability in relation to these theories (except with respect to those aspects of the theory that can be lab tested) and depend solely on inference to the best explanation. That way nobody is asserting fact where conjecture is present, and everybody has the opportunity for input and disagreement. - kind of what goes on here at UD. But I doubt if many of the over-confident yet worried Darwinists will oblige. "Now describe a single observation that would be incompatible with a designer of undetermined motives and powers?" A very superflous argument to what ID actually suggests, but several observations: If mutations presented bizarre and non-functional anomalies such that organisms eventually decay into disorderly blobs of mostly jelly. If the earth was bombarded every 100 or so years by space junk, causing the extinction of all life, and requiring evolution to start all over again. I could name a whole lot of other examples, but what would be the point? I can imagine a number of scenarios, which you could show does not falsify the theory, and I could imagine a number of other scenarios that show your theory is not falsifiable. Such imaginings do not make one lick of a difference to the explanatory power of either theory, and that's my point. Let's stick with what we can actually observe.CannuckianYankee_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

Joseph,
Can you please provide a testable hypothesis based on RM & NS.
When you obtained your masters in biology you must have covered this sort of thing already? The fact is that such hypotheses are proposed daily and tested daily, just pick up any journal. Typically the abstact of any paper (the first bit) will explain what is being tested
Host–parasite coevolution is often suggested as a mechanism for maintaining genetic diversity, but finding direct evidence has proven difficult. In the present study, we examine the process of coevolution using a freshwater New Zealand snail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) and its common parasite (the sterilizing trematode, Microphallus sp.) Specifically, we test for changes in genotypic composition of clonal host populations in experimental populations evolving either with or without parasites for six generations. As predicted under the Red Queen model of coevolution, the initially most common host genotype decreased in frequency in the presence, but not the absence, of parasitism. Furthermore, the initially most common host genotype became more susceptible to infection by the coevolving parasite populations over the course of the experiment. These results are consistent with parasite-meditated selection leading to a rare advantage, and they indicate rapid coevolution at the genotypic level between a host and its parasite.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122322147/abstract So here they are testing the hypothesis that coevolution is a mechanism for maintaining genetic diversity. Tell me Joseph, do you buy into the "Red Queen" model of coevolution? Or do you think it's bunk?Moseph_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank, Can you please provide a testable hypothesis based on RM & NS. That way we can see if it is really falsifiable by seeing if it is testable.Joseph_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

CYankee at 61:
Quoting djmullen:
“There’s no mystery about where CY’s “fitness drive” comes from. If the mutation really screws up the function of the DNA, your offspring dies and the new DNA pattern dies with it. If it screws it up a little, your offspring die more often and the mutation eventually goes extinct. And if the mutation makes your DNA operate more effectively, your offspring is a winner and it has more descendents and that new DNA pattern tends to increase.”
It sounds simple enough, and it really sounds reasonable – but only from a Darwinian natural selection perspective, which is simply put; question begging. You assume that it is mutations, which affect DNA, and not the other way around. How do you know that it is not a faulty code in the DNA, which affects the mutation? How do you know that mutations occur randomly, which affect the DNA? How do you know that DNA is not the source of the mutation? I would think this is the case – DNA contains the necessary information, which if corrupted, would logically lead to a mutation. That makes more sense than random mutations affecting and thus building the purposeful and complex specified information contained in DNA.
I keep re-reading this paragraph, trying to find a subtle philosophical point - a reference to the existence of DNA repair genes or some such, switching "which" to "that" or "affect" to "effect", but I keep coming back to the inescapable conclusion that you are unaware that a mutation is a change in the DNA sequence. And we understand where they come from. And Moseph @ 64- You make me hap-py when skies are grey. You'll never know, dear, how much I love you. ;-)DNA_Jock_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

#62 Falsifiability seems to come up very regularly here. May be worth hammering home the key points. If we define Darwinism as evolution through RM+NS then there is absolutely no question that it is falsifiable. Indeed it has been shown to be false in a minor way and been modified as a result (e.g. larmarkism has shown to be true in a small way). The following discoveries/outcomes would rule Darwinism out almost immediately and completely: * the mechanism for inheritance is blended and not particulate * the earth is only a few thousand years old * the repeated failure to get species to change at all with artificial selection * failure to observe any microevolutionary change under strong natural selection pressure The fossil record is a bit different. It is mainly evidence for common descent - not the whole shooting match. And common descent would not be rejected because a few fossils were anomalous, just as the modern theory of gravity would not be rejected if one or two heavenly bodies behaved oddly. However, if there were repeated large anomalies in the fossil record then that would be a real blow to common descent and Darwinism. Now describe a single observation that would be incompatible with a designer of undetermined motives and powers?Mark Frank_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee
I have no idea either. Darwinian evolution is not entropic – it defies the law of entropy. :) Another reason why we reject it.
That sounds very interesting - can you expand on "the law of entropy" and biology? My understanding of such matters concurs with yours - without an external source of energy systems move to states of higher entropy. Have the Darwinists ever been able to point to such a source? Not that I know of.Moseph_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

Richie, "I have no idea why people are calling evolution an ‘entropic process’" I have no idea either. Darwinian evolution is not entropic - it defies the law of entropy. :) Another reason why we reject it. I think what they really mean is that we should view evolution as a truly entropic process. When viewed in this way, evolutionary processes should lead to more decay and less complexity, and not the other way around. The problem, others would say, is that the fossil record does not reflect this - but that's just one interpretation of the fossil record that is loaded with Darwinian assumptions.CannuckianYankee_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT}

Seversky, "What paleontologists and biologists have to contend with are fragmentary clues that have survived from the distant past and what can be inferred from what is observed around us now." Agreed. However the problem is, Seversky, that Dawinian inferences require that Darwinism be true. How can we assure that Darwinism is true, as opposed to just a theory? Simple - state it as fact. You stated that the processes involved in Darwinian selection can take millions of years, and cannot be tested in the laboratory. As such, Darwinian evolution is not testable. Any argument for evolution can be shown to be true. Any evidence can be interpreted to support the theory. When counter evidences arise, the theory can simply be changed or the evidence reinterpreted to force it to conform to the theory, because it can't be falsified. But I agree with Stephen Meyer, that an inference to the best explanation is more appropriate when dealing with historical scientific theories; not falsifiability, which is really more applicable to rigorous, lab-testable theories. However, when theorists understand that a theory cannot be falsified, I think there is a tendancey to exploit the situation such that any explanation will do, as long as the theory is not abandoned. Such a scenario is possible with ID as much as it is with ToE. However, it is more likely to occur with ToE, since there are exponentially more theorists in ToE than in ID. ID, due to the small number of theorists, is better able to govern itself than is ToE. I contend that many biologists and paleontologists are tempted to force the fragmentary clues in the fossil record to conform to Darwinian evolution, even though the evidence can be interpreted otherwise. The reason this is done is because Darwinian evolution is no longer questioned among these very same biologists and paleontologists. Such a dynamic has led to the verifiability problems with the theory. When the majority of Darwinian-evolution accepting biologists believe evolution to be fact and no longer provisional, the verifiability of the theory is even more suspect. This is a problem for Darwinain ToE more than other more rigorous scientific theories, because ToE relies on historical interpretation, rather than on lab-tested results. If ID theorists are not careful, a similar dynamic could happen to ID if it gains popularity among scientists, since ID's strength is not in its falsifiability - (although I would argue that it presents more falsifiable evidence interpretation than ToE) but in being the better of two competing inferences (design vs. RM + NS) to the evidence at hand.CannuckianYankee_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT}

djmullen, Thanks for responding to my comment at 11. First of all, Dawkins' overall argument in Chapter 3 of his book is to demonstrate how cumulative selection works for Darwinism. In fact, the title of the chapter is 'Accumulating Small Change.' Now your contention that I was false in stating that Dawkins' purpose in the WEASEL program was to demonstrate how cumulative selection is a feasible process for evolution does not take this fact into consideration. True, the main focus in the demonstration was to show the speed and efficiency of cumulative selection; but the presence of the 'cheat,' the fixed goal - which Dawkins' aknowledged detracts from such a demonstration. He only demonstrated that a designed version of cumulative selection is faster and more efficient than single step selection, but as I stated in my original post; this is really very trivial if it can't demonstrate that naturalistic cumulative selection is even possible. Dawkins relies on other arguments to state the case for cumulative selection, and all of those arguments fail. Dawkins attempts to simplify the 'long-term goal' problem for evolution by positing that cumulative selection focuses on what he terms 'reproductive success.' He states: "If after aeons, what looks like progress towards some distant goal seems, with hindsight, to have been achieved, this is always an incidental consequence of many generations of short-term selection. The 'watchmaker' that is cumulative natural selection is blind to the future and has no long-term goal." (Dawkins, R. 'The Blind Watchmaker,' p. 50) Now you notice that Dawkins escapes long-term goals by another cheat - reproductive success. But cumulative selection even in biology has if not a long term goal, a short term goal. Dawkins still does not escape the purposeful design of having a goal towards reproductive success. The WEASEL program demonstrated that cumulative selection requires a goal, and Dawkins (forgive the term) 'weasels' his way around these facts, because there's really no other way around them. Cumulative selection does not buy a blind naturalistic explanation that is viable for the ToE. Dawkins' only real success is in countering a triviality. You state: "There’s no mystery about where CY’s “fitness drive” comes from. If the mutation really screws up the function of the DNA, your offspring dies and the new DNA pattern dies with it. If it screws it up a little, your offspring die more often and the mutation eventually goes extinct. And if the mutation makes your DNA operate more effectively, your offspring is a winner and it has more descendents and that new DNA pattern tends to increase." It sounds simple enough, and it really sounds reasonable - but only from a Darwinian natural selection perspective, which is simply put; question begging. You assume that it is mutations, which affect DNA, and not the other way around. How do you know that it is not a faulty code in the DNA, which affects the mutation? How do you know that mutations occur randomly, which affect the DNA? How do you know that DNA is not the source of the mutation? I would think this is the case - DNA contains the necessary information, which if corrupted, would logically lead to a mutation. That makes more sense than random mutations affecting and thus building the purposeful and complex specified information contained in DNA. You seem to believe that naturalistic Darwinian processes are what selectively over time through a process of random and non-goal-directed mutation, produced the complex code in the DNA, but this is an assumption that ignores the evidence and logic. Why do blind naturalistic processes even require a code? Darwinian processes cannot even account for the origin of the information processing of DNA, let alone, account for how mutations can affect DNA. So the 'fitness drive' problem persists.CannuckianYankee_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT}

tgpeeler at #56 Or how’s this. I call this one “Dawkins on reason” and it’s from the same book. He says: “Evolution is very possibly not, in actual fact, always gradual. But it must be gradual when it is being used to explain the coming into existence of complicated, apparently designed objects, like eyes. For if it is not gradual in these cases, it ceases to have any explanatory power at all. Without gradualness in these cases, we are back to miracle, which is simply a synonym for the total absence of explanation.” So get this, in English, he’s just said that it isn’t always gradual (like the theory claims) but for it to be useful, it HAS to be gradual, therefore it IS gradual!!!! I see Seversky has made the point about gradual being relative. I would add that what Dawkins writes is that evolution may sometimes be gradual and sometimes not and when some types of things evolve (complicated, apparently designed things) it has to be gradual. For other types of things (simpler developments presumably) it may happen suddenly or very gradually. There is no contradiction in that. For example, duplication of chromosomes has lead to simple changes in some plant species in one generation (although it would take many generations for a population of the new species to become established). But duplication of chromosomes would never lead to a complex new organ. This would require gradual steps.Mark Frank_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT}

Gee, that explanation throws altruism in the human species right out the window. The only reason Mother Theresa cooperated by sacrificing for the needs of Calcutta’s poorest, was to gain a survival advantage – even though she died in poverty.
I won't bother making an argument but it strikes me as somewhat on the too optimistic side for people without some background in psychology and studies of survival strategies as well as what are motivating behaviour - in all animal species; humans no exception - to make bold statements about the subject. It is not even about evolution; it is about strategies for survival - the conflict between what benefits an individual vs. what benefits the group, clan, species. Take sex: An individual want sex for personal 'benefit' but in the process also contribute to the survival of the species. In short: much more complicated than most people are aware of.Cabal_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply