Sober Rebukes Evolution’s Religion (Sometimes)

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 26, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

The religion in evolution can be subtle and it can fool even sophisticated thinkers. Elliott Sober, for example, has recognized that religious premises are used by evolutionists. He says they don’t work because they rely on gratuitous assumptions. In his book Evidence and Evolution he writes the following:

Continue reading here.

Comments

Then I suggest that one’s belief that life did arise from inanimate chemicals, and that it only arose once and that we are all the descendants thereof, is an ideological position, not a scientific one, seeing as we can’t even say how it happened, if it happened, and how likely (or unlikely) it is that life arose from inaniate matter at all, or multiple times. Lets separate OOL from all that follows. Very little is known about the OOL so it is reasonable to say that my belief that it is from inanimate sources is partly based on a prior disbelief in teleological explanations. However, it is quite scientific to take that belief, hypothesise how it might have happened, and conduct tests to see if those hypotheses are plausible - which is what is being done. It is of course open to anyone to form hypotheses about teleological origins and conduct similar tests. Other things you mention such as common descent have much more substantial evidence based on fossil record, cladistics at the genetic and phenotype level, biogeography,and embyrology.Mark Frank_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg, Have you read the O.P. in full?William J. Murray_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

William J. Murray:
The interpretation according to mainstream evolutionary views of the evidence you have cited has been called into question. Citing that interpretation of facts in defense of that interpretation, is a logical fallacy.
What are you talking about? What interpretation? Called into question by whom?David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

Mark, Then I suggest that one's belief that life did arise from inanimate chemicals, and that it only arose once and that we are all the descendants thereof, is an ideological position, not a scientific one, seeing as we can't even say how it happened, if it happened, and how likely (or unlikely) it is that life arose from inaniate matter at all, or multiple times. Now, the evidence might suggest that this is so from a certain perspective, but I'd add that without the assumption of common descent and "rarity of abiogenesis", one might interpret the fossil and genetic data in an entirely different light, and come to entirely different conclusions that are also entirely consonant with the actual, factual data.William J. Murray_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg: The interpretation according to mainstream evolutionary views of the evidence you have cited has been called into question. Citing that interpretation of facts in defense of that interpretation, is a logical fallacy. We are attempting to justify that interpretation through other processes, either brute probability, or parsimony (Occam's Razor). So far, it appears that such aspects of current evolutionary/abiogenesis theory cannot even be defended as more likely than the theory that each major life form was created in whole form through random quantum fluctuations, and then degraded through genetic entropy into variations of itself, usually into extinction.William J. Murray_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

Dave Wisker [148]:
I for one do not understand, at least completely. A recessive allele in heterozygous form has no effect on fitness because it is masked by the dominant allele; however, in homozygous form is it not fully expressed?
Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking about the heterozygous situation and failed to stipulate that.Adel DiBagno_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

#152 I see your point. I hope you can see how hard it is to even phrase a question about such fundamental probabilities - much less answer it. What are the chances that a self-replicating life form spontaneously manifested out of inanimate matter, given the time and parameters of our universe? There has been lots of stuff written on this by much cleverer people than me. It still needs a lot of qualification to make sense. But maybe it is something on the lines of: Given the conditions on earth 4 billion years ago what was the probability of forming a self-replicating molecule with inherited variation somewhere on earth in the course of a year (or whatever timescale you like)? Even then we should really make "the conditions on earth 4 billion years" more precise. However, having said all that - the answer is - we don't know. As you know there have been many attempts to simulate the environment and some of them have produced somewhat lifelike molecules - but nothing as far as I know that actually replicated in a sustained way. But we don't really know the conditions and we are only trying for a very limited time in a very limited space. Nature had all of earth and billions of years to get a result.Mark Frank_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

Adel said: "An hilariously entertaining riff on “selective hyperskepticism.” William, long may you wave." I'm not familiar with the term "selective hyperskepticism". I maintain a neutral skepticism about virtually everything so I can keep an open mind and more properly evaluate arguments and evidence without an emotional, or ideological commitment to any particular position. It also helps to keep me more tolerant and understanding, more friendly towards others; I can respect virtually any position or view. I have found that when people commit to a position as "true", they generally become less and less considerate and respectful of other positions, to the point of attacking and ridiculing them. If there is a substantive reason for me to commit to a belief, then I do so, with the caveat that I am not claiming that the thing in question is true, only that I act as if it is true. If that is "selective hyperskepticism", then so be it. Adel said: "And while you’re waving, you might get out more and visit a chicken hatchery. Then you can talk more productively with Mark Frank." I think our discussion is quite productive. Adel said: "(I wonder: when your physician or dentist recommends a course of treatment, how do you evaluate its prospects, given that you haven’t experienced it yet?)" I suggest you read my exchanges above more carefully. I said that I don't commit to beliefs without reason, not that I do not commit to beliefs. Also, I agreed with Mark about what the evidence indicates.William J. Murray_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

Levy #147 said: "And I suppose Occams Razor suggests that the spontaneous generation of an “intelligent designer” able to create birds in a single swoop is yet more probable then their evolution?" I have not introduced an "intelligent designer" into this discussion, nor am I going to. It has nothing to do with the questions I am asking. Levy #147 said: "Have you ever thought about your position and what it entails? You decry evolution as “improbable” and yet believe in something vastly more improbable yourself." Where have I said that evolution is improbable? Exactly what is it that I believe in that is "improbable"? After you answer those questions, please be prepared to describe for me how you concluded the probability differential. Levy #147 said: "And a “favorable natural selection run” exists for everything that currently exists. If it did not, it would not exist." Well, one certainly cannot argue with a tautology. Levy #147 said: "Yes, it’s unlikely that you’ll win the lottery. Yet somebody does, week after week, against great odds." Nobody wins any lottery, unless an intelligent agent sets up the lottey, and generates a system where someone can win.William J. Murray_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

Mark, I appreciate your sincere efforts to answer my questions. Unfortunately, if we change the question to "any self-replicating entity", then we don't have a comparison to make, because both 1 & 2 would read: "What are the chances that a self-replicating life-form spontaneously manifests out of inanimate matter?" Perhaps you will just answer that question then? What are the chances that a self-replicating life form spontaneously manifested out of inanimate matter, given the time and parameters of our universe?William J. Murray_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT}

Cornelius, have you seen this yet? "GIVE Richard Dawkins a child for a week’s summer camp and he will try to give you an atheist for life." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6591236.eceIRQ Conflict_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT}

Re #125 and ensuing discussion. William Murray made this curious request. Could you please direct me to the computer simulations, or the research, or perhaps just an abstract, that show how likely it is for life to emerge from non-life, and then evolve over billions of years into a bird, compared to the likelihood of a bird simply manifesting whole out of inanimate material? Last night I thought the response would be a scientific and could not face the work involved in looking up references and finding quotes. Having slept on it I realise that the request needs clarifying – which is one reason why you don’t see scientific papers addressing this specific question. However, it needs a long essay to do this. All I can do on a blog comment is point out some of the issues. What is the outcome we are discussing? Perhaps it is a single cell that in a suitable environment will grow into an egg and then into something we recognise as a bird. Call it a bird-cell. It makes some kind of sense to ask – if there were a bunch of chemicals in the right proportion in a suitable solvent (water?) what are the chances they would assemble themselves (presumably within some time limit) into a bird-cell. The answer is as close to zero as makes no difference. It also makes some kind of sense to ask – if there were a bunch of chemicals that replicated with slight variation and a fitness function that on each replication eliminated chemicals that did not contribute to making a bird-cell (phew!), what are the chances of getting a bird-cell after 4 billion years. This is Dawkins WEASEL programme and we have all seen that that such a programme dramatically increases the probability of coming up with a solution. I am well aware of the objection in the case of the WEASEL programme that the fitness function was designed to meet the objective. But evolution doesn’t have an objective. It just has a fitness function. That fitness function leads to outcomes and it is hard to know what constrains the outcomes that will survive the fitness function. Maybe the range of such outcomes is infinitely vast and if we ran the story of life again from 4 billion years ago the chances of ending up with a bird or any life-form we recognise would be infinitesimally small. A slightly different mutation along the line might lead to something completely different. Or maybe the constraints on what can survive mean that actually life would have to follow a very similar pattern. As I understand it, the evidence is beginning to mount that the viable patterns in life are fairly constrained. That’s why evolution repeats itself. But either way the process will lead to outcomes that are viable – can continue to replicate in the changing environments in which they find themselves. Once you have a chemical that can replicate with variation this outcome is highly likely. You have a solution similar to Dawkins WEASEL programme (which we have seen greatly increases probabilities) – but the fitness function defined the target rather than the other way round. So perhaps the relevant question is not “what are the chances of producing a bird-cell” but what are the chances of producing an outcome that continue to replicate itself in the changing environment.Mark Frank_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT}

Mere, I missed your earlier response at 75. You ask "Why do ID proponents hate this sort of question?" There are two reasons: 1) It's not a matter of observable evidence, and science is best served by following the actual evidence. This may not explain any emotion an ID proponent might have shown you regarding the question, but it explains why there will be no answer given. 2) When someone is asking such a question they are demonstrating either abject ignorance or willful ignorance, and they will (no doubt) be insistent that you be a part of it with them. This will explain any emotion you might have noticed as you repeatedly ask it. On the idea of committing oneself to ideas based solely on the evidence, you state:
It’s actually a fatal mistake, as I explained earlier in the thread, because it makes the design hypothesis unfalsifiable.
Are you completely certain that its a fatal mistake to follow observable evidence in a scientific inquiry? And you say, that by doing so it would make any conclusions based solely on that observable evidence impossible to falsify? Thats is a very intersting position to hold. (pssst...you have some straw stuck to your shoe)Upright BiPed_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT}

@Adel and Levy: Resorts to derision only underscore the weakness of your position. If you had a real answer to the question on the table, you'd give it.Phinehas_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

Hi Adel, What part of Whenever you have a recessive allele you have a “useless” mutation, in the sense that the mutant gene has no direct influence on fitness. do you not understand? I for one do not understand, at least completely. A recessive allele in heterozygous form has no effect on fitness because it is masked by the dominant allele; however, in homozygous form is it not fully expressed?Dave Wisker_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

It seems to me that the spontaneous generation of the bird is the most efficient (by Occam’s Razor) explanation, because it doesn’t both the generation of life from non-life and billions of years of necessary evolutionary sequences and a favorable natural selection run in order to exist.
And I suppose Occams Razor suggests that the spontaneous generation of an "intelligent designer" able to create birds in a single swoop is yet more probable then their evolution? Have you ever thought about your position and what it entails? You decry evolution as "improbable" and yet believe in something vastly more improbable yourself. And a "favorable natural selection run" exists for everything that currently exists. If it did not, it would not exist. So what? If Oranges never evolved, Proanges would have. Or Blues. Or Reds. Yes, it's unlikely that you'll win the lottery. Yet somebody does, week after week, against great odds.Echidna-Levy_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

William
In any event, it doesn’t change the nature of the probability comparison we are addressing.
Do you happen to be sitting under a giant cardboard pyramid?Echidna-Levy_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

William J. Murray [117]:
Mark Frank says: “We have observed millions of animals including birds being born. ” Regardless of evidence, I never commit to absolute positions, because I’m all too aware of the potential for humans to be in error. Also, I have never empirically observed even one bird being born, so I’d not only be accepting evidence on authority and by testimony (which is fine), but I’d also have to be accepting something I have no personal experience of as a fact (not so fine). Being an empiricist, I prefer to gain my factual knowliege by direct experience, even if I examine it and testimony rationally.
An hilariously entertaining riff on "selective hyperskepticism." William, long may you wave. And while you're waving, you might get out more and visit a chicken hatchery. Then you can talk more productively with Mark Frank. (I wonder: when your physician or dentist recommends a course of treatment, how do you evaluate its prospects, given that you haven't experienced it yet?)Adel DiBagno_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

William J. Murray [103]:
Adele, We seem to be having a communication problem. Is “recessive” by definition the same as “useless”?
First of all, I am not Adele. I am Adel (short for Adelardo). Secondly, the communication problem seems to me to be on your end. What part of
Whenever you have a recessive allele you have a “useless” mutation, in the sense that the mutant gene has no direct influence on fitness.
do you not understand? Definition has nothing to do with it.Adel DiBagno_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

David, Asserting that I don't understand your argument doesn't make your case. Perhaps if you outlined the number of necessary assumptions the "spontaneous" theory asserts, vs the number of necessary assumtions the evolutionary theory asserts, we can develop a comparison of necessary assertions for our Occam's evaluation. Note: this is not a comparison of brute probability, but I'll be happy to examine any research that attempts to make a brute probability comparison. As I see it, the spontaneous manifestation of the bird theory requires one assumption: that a freak quantum fluctuation generated a bird - or this case, we'll call it the hermaphroditic ancestor of all birds. Or, we can posit two such events, a male and a female. That's one or two assumptions, neither of which violate any known natural law; they are just highly unlikely events. Now, with the other theory, we have (1) the spontaneous generation of life, and (2-????) an undefined number of necessary, specific mutational and natural selection events that culminate in the existence of male & female birds. It seems to me that the spontaneous generation of the bird is the most efficient (by Occam's Razor) explanation, because it doesn't both the generation of life from non-life and billions of years of necessary evolutionary sequences and a favorable natural selection run in order to exist.William J. Murray_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

Levy: I've never heard of Ray Comforts. I never said I thought I was the first guy to think of anything; I was pointing out that if two birds had to be generated spontaneously, two birds (or two of something, sexually speaking) had to be generated. Or, if we are going with an original hermaphrodite that split into two sexes, the spontaneously-created bird could also be our hemaphrodite. In any event, it doesn't change the nature of the probability comparison we are addressing.William J. Murray_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

William,
Doesn’t that make it more difficult for evolution to achieve the same task of a male and femal bird?
Your trival arguments are soundly refuted. You know you are arguing using Ray Comforts talking points right? http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/elephantine_errors_from_ray_co.php If you want to learn something, follow the link.
As for the appearance of those male and female sexes, their origin lies far back in the pre-Cambrian. The differences arose gradually. The distant ancestor of all those animals Ray rattled off, and including insects, clams, squid, starfish, and leeches, was a pre-Cambrian worm, and it was most likely a hermaphrodite, producing both sperm and eggs. The sexual differences Ray finds so difficult to comprehend arose by progressive specialization: genetic switches that could turn off either male or female gamete production were already present, and some individuals in the population turned off the making of eggs and made sperm, while others did vice versa. It happened in worms, worms that have contemporary relatives that live fruitful lives of sexual ambiguity. I teach freshman students who have no problem at all in understanding these basic principles.
Perhaps you should crack a book or two open? You think you are the first person to think about this? It's basic stuff!Echidna-Levy_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

Actually, it means that for evolution to accomplish the bird, all sexually-reproducing ancestors of the bird would have to produce both male and female variations of each new species up to the bird, correct?
Um, no. You need to understand genetics a little better and you need to engage in some population thinking. I'm not going to walk you through this. It is, as they say, not even wrong.David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

David: evolution would also have to provide a male and female bird, no? Actually, it means that for evolution to accomplish the bird, all sexually-reproducing ancestors of the bird would have to produce both male and female variations of each new species up to the bird, correct? Doesn't that make it more difficult for evolution to achieve the same task of a male and femal bird? Occam's Razor? In the first example, we have one postulate/necessary assumption: that a whole bird manifests from inanimate matter, at one time, through a freak quantum fluctuation. In the second, we have billions of years of necessary occurences and the same generation of life from non-life at the beginning of that process. Occam's Razor, it seems to me, favors the spontaneous manifestation of the bird and not the spontaneous manifestation of life followed by billions of years of convenient mutation and selection sequences to get the same product.William J. Murray_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

How does the lineage of birds beginning with a spontaneously manifested bird not coincide with anatomical, genetic, fossil, or geographic evidence?
Well, for one thing, you'd have to have two birds, one female and one male, emerging spontaneously. Birds evolving from ancestral forms is more consistent with the history of sexual reproduction. There's also Occam's Razor, which makes the proposed idea fairly idiotic (sorry).David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank: If you are going to resort to throwing out titles without any pertinent quotes, and then accuse me of trying to "tire you out" simply because I ask you to support your assertions, then I suggest you refrain from engaging in such discussions if you are going to beg out and then try to blame me for it. In #124 you said: "The answer to your question is that is far more likely to happen through evolution over billions of years rather than spontaneously." But now in #136, you say: "Comparative likelihoods mean something, but it makes no sense to ask of the probability of specific event. That can be as small as you like depending on how you describe the event." If it makes no sense to ask of the likelihood of a specific event, how can you state that it is far more likely that #2 occurs than #1?William J. Murray_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Nakashima: I'm sorry, I dont' really understand your response. Are you saying that the first scenario is more likely than the second in the isolated case, but that a system of generating living things is more likely to exist than a bunch of living things all being generated into existence seperately?William J. Murray_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

Re #125 I suspect you of trying to win this argument by exhausting me. It is late here and very hot. I am not a biologist. I rarely read biology papers. I read biology books. Here are a few: The Origin of Species- Charles Darwin - not a bad start Evolutionary Biology - Douglas Futuyma. Sinauer 1986. Evolution ed Peter Skelton. Open University. 1993 The Plausability of Life - Kirchner and Gerhart. Yale UP 2005 I hope you are not looking for a specific number for the probability. Comparative likelihoods mean something, but it makes no sense to ask of the probability of specific event. That can be as small as you like depending on how you describe the event.Mark Frank_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

David, How does the lineage of birds beginning with a spontaneously manifested bird not coincide with anatomical, genetic, fossil, or geographic evidence?William J. Murray_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

Mr Murray, Then the question becomes, is it more, or less likely for rudimentary life to evolve from non-life, and then evolve over billions of years into a bird - rather than a whole bird just manifesting from inanimate matter all at once? I think we can safely assume that the probability of the first evolving life, forming from inaninmate chemicals, is much smaller than the probability of a chicken forming from chicken soup. Now, is the probability of evolution happening going to fit in the difference? I'd say yes. Here is an interesting paper on the entropic cost of evolution that may help motivate that.Nakashima_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply