Speculation Presented As Fact (or, Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit)

_{Gil Dodgen

November 13, 2007

Science}

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

I don’t watch a lot of television, but I must admit that I enjoy the History Channel. The other night I was watching a program on the origin of the universe and life. At one point the narrator commented (I paraphrase), “And then, unknown chemical reactions caused life to form.”

This is obviously pure speculation presented as fact, and my Carl-Sagan-inspired baloney detection kit went into immediate overdrive. I said to myself: “Self, how do they know that unknown chemical reactions caused life to form? No evidence is presented for this claim. And how did all that complex information-processing machinery come about through chemical reactions?”

Baloney detection is a two-edged sword.

Comments

Ella I see your: Improbable doesn’t mean impossible. Eric is right to point out that there are degrees of improbability, and that when available probabilistic resources are sufficiently exhausted, improbability approaches impossibility. Indeed, as my Appendix 1 in the always linked through my handle discusses, that's the foundation of statistical thermodynamics. Why not look then at my argument in that said Appendix [and the main document], and come back to us on a probabilistically plausible non-metaphysical (no infinite multiverses, please!) account for the origin of functionally specific, complex information [FSCI, a key subset of CSI] at the origin of life and in the key origin- of- body- plan level Macroevolutionary case? Then, too, maybe you can show me why it is not a positive argument to: [a] observe that such FSCI, in every directly known case, is the product of agency. [b] note that of the three main causal patterns, chance, agency and mechanically necessary natural regularities, only chance and agency account for things with high contingency similar to long enough digital strings [500 - 1,000 bits of storage capacity being the relevant threshold of "long enough]. [c] observe that when we face islands and archipelagos of functionality in such configuration spaces of scale at least 2^ 500 to 2^1,000 [~ 10^150 to 10^301 "cells"], such islands are unlikely to be found through random searches even once in the scope of the observed cosmos [~10^80 atoms, 13.7 BY] -- but are routinely successfully targetted by agents [e.g. this post]. [d] infer that such FSCI on relevant cases even when we do not directly observe the causal event chain is the product of agency, on inference to best explanation -- the same basis on which we routinely infer to far less plain cases in science and statistics. (Just think about the relative sizes of he rejection and acceptance regions. We are perfectly willing to accept a huge penalty of false negatives, because of the significance of the relevant positives.) GEM of TKI PS: Let's see if I am back on ye old mod pile permanente . . . .kairosfocus_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT}

Carl Speciation, even if it has been observed, only implies reproductive isolation. It's exceedingly difficult to test in closely related species. It's often difficult to get the same species to successfully breed in a lab. But even if something changed and one populaton splits into two reproductively isolated populations it implies no more than that they can evolve along different paths not that they will evolve along different paths. I blogged a year or two ago about two species of some tiny worm whose name escapes me. They inhabit the same niche and are phenotypically so close that only an expert who studies them can tell one from the other. Yet their genotype is so different it's presumed they have been separate species for 250 million years.DaveScot_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT}

"Improbable doesn’t mean impossible." Of course not. It just means improbable. As in, unlikely to occur during the entire age of the universe. As in, it is more likely that the sun would cease to shine tomorrow at noon. As in, the kind of probabilities upon which all science is based, not pure logical impossibility. That kind of improbable. If you are resting your hopes of a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life on that kind of improbable, you are surely in the realm of metaphysics and not science. I'm not sure what your point is about spontaneous abortion. The primary thing that amazes me about pregnancy is that it works at all. There are literally thousands upon thousands of things that have to go just right in order to start with a fertilized egg and end up with a human baby. There are myriad ways the system can crash and in order for it to work right, things have to happen in a coordinated fashion, in the right order at the right time. It's called irreducible complexity.Eric Anderson_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT}

Getawitness: If you want to find a copy of the vanished paper, complete with commentary on it being wrong from several professional mathematicians that hasn't been answered, just google its name. Google is enough to disillusion me severely of all of this. Google every claim and find a handy, ignored refutation. I'm not going to explain the simple arguments against improbability in evolution. The bulk of my knowledge of mathematics comes from cards, but it looks sound to me. Google if you want it. Google, google, google.Bugsy_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT}

Ellazimm (in reference to #11) I cannot imagine how von Neumann’s “Theory of Self Reproducing Automata” could be affected by 50 years of research like that, or even 5000 years for that matter. Its as if we now had a straight edge aligned atom by atom in a Euclidian plane with deviations of less than a nanometer, and a compass with both the stylus and the pivot positioned with the same accuracy, we could say that the old mathematical proof of the impossibility of squaring a circle is now superceded by these engineering marvels. Von Neumann deduced the constraint that the activity of replication requires that a part of the replication system must change while performing it, and that such change precludes faithful replication if the changing component attempts to copy itself. Therefore, the replication system must be arranged so that the changing component has a passive copy of itself to work with. It makes no difference whether the system is made of tinker toys or ribozymes; the distinction is completely formal. One would have to prove how von Neumann’s work is in error. The notion that advances in chemistry supercede logical necessity is a formalist’s nightmare, even if it may be an empiricists dream.D.A.Newton_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

ellazimm, you said "It wasn’t just chance, it was random mutation directed by natural selection. Biological self replicating systems favor those configurations that are able to create more off-spring and so the mathematics changes." You assume we have not read anything or do not understand the process or that we are confused and that you have this marvelous insight. Your statement is incredibly naive. We have discussed natural selection backwards and forwards for years and the conclusion is that it rarely produces anything but triviality. No evolutionary biologist has ever contradicted this conclusion with any empirical data. We recited the comments from Allen MacNeill who is certainly no friend of ID. The real issue is not natural selection but variation and how it originates. That is what the debate is all about. Without variation natural selection is powerless to do anything. And you cannot recite the platitude that small changes become big channges because genetic processes tend to eliminate all changes unless they have selection value and permeate the population. And if these small changes had selection value they would be visible today as the changes try to penetrate the whole population through genetic processes and would not take thousands or hundreds of thousands of years to observe but could be observed daily in the millions of populations that exist on the planet. But no joy. No progressions exist. Oh, yes there are mutations and populations do change but they never produce anything but trivial effects in terms of evolution. It does not mean however that these changes are not extremely important for medicine and genetic research. Behe's Edge of Evolution was all about the origin of variation and how much appears and how much of the biological world it can explain. It is a completely different argument from his first book but both point out the limitations of naturalistic processes. You say you have a mathematical background then you have a logical mind and can then follow if any of Behe's points have ever been answered. We do not believe they have been but you can challenge us to see what our assessments are and then you can judge who is honest. I often make the claim that I rarely meet an honest Darwinist and certainly Ken Miller, Sean Carroll and the others who have critiqued Behe have used deceptive reviews to attack him and his book. The thing that has gotten to me the most in this debate is the dishonesty that comes primarily from one side. Why do they have to be so dishonest if they have truth on their side. So go read. Behe's books, Sean Carroll's books, Ken Miller's book, Darwin himself, Meyers' discussion of the Cambrian Explosion, some of Dawkins and Dembski and there are lots of othes. It will take you about 6 months to get a grip on most of the arguments. Most of here have been readinb both sides for years. If you still disagree with us, see if you can trip us up. We would welcome it but no one has done it yet.jerry_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT}

Carl Sachs [145], the link didn't work. Did you mean this? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htmlgetawitness_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

Barry As much as I believe the religion of darwinism has permeated our academic culture, I hesitate to say that all biologists are liars. I'm not sure, maybe they are. I will think about it. I'm sure you know much more about this than I do. If it is not true that speciation has been observed, I will admit that I have been suckered by the botanists who have argued for the contemporary speciation events in Spartina and in sunflowers. I am just an engineer so perhaps I was hoodwinked. the Spartina example of speciation I have always thought supported ID. Spartina alterniflora was introduced into England via ship ballast in the late 18th century, after a hundred or so years it hybridized with a native Spartina to make a polyploid species that is reproductively isolated from both parentals. But, again, the ID part is THIS TOOK INTELLIGENT AGENTS. this spartina didn't just get up and walk across the ocean by itself, it was transported by INTELLIGENT AGENTS. strike three against the materialists. i'm not so sure about the sunflower thing but I know you can't believe everything you read in Nature and Science since they are unabashedly pro-nihilistic materialism.Erasmus_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT}

BarryA [141], I think there is such evidence. Consider Henry et al., "Rapid Evolution of Reproductive Isolation in the Wild: Evidence from Introduced Salmon" (1990):
Colonization of new environments should promote rapid speciation as a by-product of adaptation to divergent selective regimes. Although this process of ecological speciation is known to have occurred over millennia or centuries, nothing is known about how quickly reproductive isolation actually evolves when new environments are first colonized. Using DNA microsatellites, population-specific natural tags, and phenotypic variation, we tested for reproductive isolation between two adjacent salmon populations of a common ancestry that colonized divergent reproductive environments (a river and a lake beach). We found evidence for the evolution of reproductive isolation after fewer than 13 generations.
But while this seems to be speciation, ID should not have a problem with it because it views speciation as microevolution. You're conflating speciation with macroevolution. See the notorious Of Pandas and People, "Is Speciation Macroevolution" (page 19).getawitness_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT}

Actually, speciation has been observed, at least as far as the Talk.Origins folks are concerned: see here So if you want to argue that that's not really speciation, you'll need to develop a different concept of species than those currently accepted among biologists.Carl Sachs_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

No speciation event has ever been observed by humans. After nearly 100 years of zapping fruit flies with radiation, all they got was . . . more fruit flies. You got that right. You would think, after all the years of observing nature, we'd see a human born into a colony of monkeys. But all they ever get is more monkeys.poachy_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT}

BarryA wrote: "Erasmus, what planet do you live on? No speciation event has ever been observed by humans." Perhaps he stumbled upon some TalkOrigins propaganda?shaner74_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

BarryA, sorry -- I had a brain fart.getawitness_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

Erasmus, what planet do you live on? No speciation event has ever been observed by humans. After nearly 100 years of zapping fruit flies with radiation, all they got was . . . more fruit flies.BarryA_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

Getawitness: "BarryA, Thanks. I asked because you said the pro-ID side was “given no air time” in the show last night. I didn’t actually watch the show, but I heard he was going to be on it (and he was of course a witness for the defense at Dover)." Yes, he was a witness for the defense at Dover, but he does not support ID. He supports giving it a fair chance in the marketplace of ideas. BTW, I think you have your shows confused. This post is about Gil's History Channel show "the other night." The other post is about the PBS show last night.BarryA_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

ellazimm, just because there have been observations of speciation within human observational spans doesn't spell doom for ID. In fact, ID predicts this, since humans are intelligent agents and activly manipulate the environment. I have yet to see a bird turn into a dog, which ID predicts will never happen but darwinism predicts should happen regularly.Erasmus_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

Sigh. Nobody's gonna help me answer my off-topic question above [84 and 97]. Help! I want that paper!getawitness_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

Poachy, In what way do I reject the sudden appearance of organisms? If birds, fish etc appeared fully formed but with no chemical reactions taking place, they would not be alive in any concept of the word. Therefore, chemical reactions are necessary (but not sufficient of course) for life as we know it. BarryA, those two sides are not evident in the quote. No mention of a purely natural unguided and blind process that involved chance and/or necessity resulted in the formation of life is present in Gils description above. getawitness, It matters not if the designer is material, the fact is we are - if not wholly at least partially. The chemical reactions don't have to take place in the designer, they have to take place in us. Every form of life that we are aware of involves chemical reactions of some sort. bornagain, I'm perfectly fine with specific intelligent thought will arrange specific atomic molecules into specific discernible patterns Indeed, that exactly constitutes the unknown chemical reactions. Cause: Intellegent designer Effect: unknown chemical reactions (unknown to us, not "it") for which follows... Cause:unknown chemical reactions Effect: Life I don't see this as inconsistent with ID.leo_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

BarryA:
The longest estimate is 10 million years. If the history of life were 3,500 years instead of 3.5 billion years, 95% of the animal phyla would have arisen in just one decade of that 3.5 millenia. You just can't square that with the NDE.
Here's a thought: This represents less than 0.3% of the total time span. I suspect that this has reached, or has even exceeded, the potential resolution of traditional dating methods and algorithms. If this is the case, the Cambrian explosion might have been essentially instantaneous, as though a preprogrammed switch turned on when conditions were right. Cosmological evidence suggests that the universe itself was preprogrammed for life more than 13 billion years in advance. I suggest that there is a cumulative-case argument for the notion that the entire life-generating enterprise was rigged in advance, with foreknowledge. Perhaps this topic deserves its own thread. I had no idea that my simple little post about a History Channel episode would explode into so many commentary phyla in such a short period of time! I didn't plan it that way. :-)GilDodgen_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

BarryA, Thanks. I asked because you said the pro-ID side was "given no air time" in the show last night. I didn't actually watch the show, but I heard he was going to be on it (and he was of course a witness for the defense at Dover).getawitness_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

getawitness says: "BarryA, I guess you would not list Steve Fuller as being on the ID side? I’m just curious, because given his overall philosophical perspective, he might seem to you even less reasonable than me!" This question seems to have come ou of the blue. Why do you ask? As for Fuller, I would not list him as pro-ID. He says himself that Darwinism "has the most evidence on its side." In my understanding Fuller, while not believing in ID, wants to open the playing field up and give it a fair chance.BarryA_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

BarryA [129], thanks for the longer quote. Nope. No Darwin there.getawitness_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

Ellazimm --Please, get past the hyperbole! Wait a minute. I'm not the one making documentaries about the history of life. Objecting to hyperbole in complex and elaborate productions which claim to be educational and which claim to be accurate representations of the real is quite appropriate, don't you agree? And I certainly have no objection to OOL research.tribune7_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

getawitness, here's the whole quote: I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves . . . For myself . . . the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation . . . sexual [and] political.BarryA_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

Ellazimm in 110: “Some variations may be positive: Gosh Amuir, you out ran that man-eating thing with big teeth and Wilf and Running Cloud didn’t.” "Yeah, you sure would make a great mate Amuir, too bad I’m already with Sitting Horse. I know he’s overweight, slow, and lazy, but I love him. Well, good luck passing on your selfish genes Amuir." Reality is funny like that.shaner74_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

BarryA, with all respect to Dr. Kennedy, he did not simply mix up the Huxleys. He claimed to have witnessed personally a television show in which Julian Huxley said the words I quoted above. He repeated the charge over and over and over, in print and on air (both radio and television), and connected the statement to numerous (alleged) details of Julian Huxley's personal and professional life. It was personal, allegedly eyewitness testimony based on an experience of viewing, not of reading. Also, does Aldous talk about Darwin in that statement?getawitness_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

BarryA, I guess you would not list Steve Fuller as being on the ID side? I'm just curious, because given his overall philosophical perspective, he might seem to you even less reasonable than me!getawitness_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

getawitness says: "But Huxley apparently never said that." It is true that Julian never said that. But Aldous Huxley said: For myself . . . the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation . . . sexual [and] political. Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means: An Inquiry into the Nature of Ideals and into the Methods Employed for Their Realization (New York: Harper Bros, 1937), 270. Kennedy just got his Huxleys mixed up. No great fault that.BarryA_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

leo, Look at post 105, I hold that a proper test is entirely plausible in which specific intelligent thought will arrange specific atomic molecules into specific discernible patterns, I find the scenario entirely plausible within the scientific method from the evidence I have been able to gather. Thus unlike NDE which is futile, absurd, and hopeless to the nth degree, I believe our technology is at a point to allow such a delicate and precise test of a foundational "Theistic" ID tenet, Thus validating a primary tenet of ID empirically, and having a vastly better picture of the origin of life than NDE will ever produce!bornagain77_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

ellazimm wrote: "Some variations may be positive: Gosh Amuir, you out ran that man-eating thing with big teeth and Wilf and Running Cloud didn’t." Sure, that's the idea in theory. The problem is, that's the idea in theory. Not much actual substance around it. We're all very familiar with the theory: some variations are good, the advantaged organisms will be better off than the less fortunate counterparts (slipping toward a tautology here, but hey, let's press on). Unfortunately, reality ain't quite that simple. Turns out it is exceedingly unlikely you're going to get an advantageous mutation, exceedingly unlikely that it will actually confer a survial advantage, exceedingly unlikely that it will get fixed in a population, exceedingly unlikely that it will combine down the road with some other exceedingly unlikely variation to produce a complex functional whole. We're right back into the probability assessment, and the odds are clearly showing that it didn't happen the way ol' Chuck envisioned it.Eric Anderson_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply