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

ellazimm "It is being honest however. And it is true that from an evidence based view no one does know exactly what happened." Honest ? You've got to be kidding! What is honest about passing off pure speculation as fact? What is life?Borne_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

BarryA, you're quite right. In particular, the phrase "chemical reactions" would only work in limited instances. If the intelligent agent is embodied, that agent would probably work by material processes including chemistry. In fact, DaveScot has argued that the agent just needs a really good knowledge of chemistry to do the deed. But I have been arguing in other threads (haven't convinced DaveScot yet, but I think the argument is in the spirit of Dr. Dembski's work) that if CSI is in principle incapable of being introduced by material processes, then the agent is in all likelihood not embodied. That would make this statement incompatible with ID indeed!getawitness_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

leo: "And then, unknown chemical reactions caused life to form.” pretty much sums up all sides Not true. One side (i.e., the side taken on the TV show) says that a purely natural unguided and blind process that involved chance and/or necessity resulted in the formation of life. The process is not now known, but is not, in principle, unknowable. The other side (which was given no air time) says appeals to chance and necessity for the leap from non-living to living matter are utterly futile. Living things are very complicated and rich in information and appear to have been designed for a purpose. If one combines the fact that chance and necessity are wholly inadequate to explain the data with the appearance of design, the best inference to explain the origin of life is as the act of an unknown intelligent agent. Those two statements are very different.BarryA_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

So no one here thinks that, whatever the intelligent agent may be, they used any sort of chemical reaction to initiate life? And do we know what those would be? Your materialist stripes are showing by your categorical rejection of apparent sudden appearance of intact organisms like fish with fins and scales, or birds with feathers, beaks, and wings.poachy_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

So no one here thinks that, whatever the intelligent agent may be, they used any sort of chemical reaction to initiate life? And do we know what those would be? Therefore: “And then, unknown chemical reactions caused life to form.” pretty much sums up all sidesleo_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

Wow, this thread is getting interesting. GilDodgen, sorry for being difficult at the beginning: paraphrase is so subject to misappropriation, and the "I watched a show" move sometimes goes wrong. The late D. James Kennedy used to tell a story over and over again about Julian Huxley -- a show Kennedy claimed to have watched, where Huxley said "I suppose the reason we leaped at The Origin was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores." But Huxley apparently never said that. I was always kind of embarrassed for Kennedy when he told that story, and I've always been wary of stories about television-watching. But I'm comfortable that your version of that show is reasonably accurate. By the way, I asked an off-topic question above [84 and 97] about an ID paper by Dr. Dembski and Dr. Marks that I can't find anymore. Does anybody have any information on it? Maybe it's coming out in a journal.getawitness_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

ellazimm asks: "The Cambrian explosion: quick quiz, over how many years was the Cambrian explosion supposed to have taken place?" Answer: 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.BarryA_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

Stanton writes: "[Punctuated equilibrium] is an explanation for what is NOT observed, i.e., gradualism as predicted by Darwin.[/blockquote] In the same sense that Relativity as explained by Einstein is an observation of what Newton failed to observe." Nonsense. If Darwinian theory is correct, not only should there be many transitional forms in the record (especially at the level of phyla -- where, by the way, there are none), but transitional forms should PREDOMINATE in the record. The whole point of the punk eek project is to explain why the falsification of this Darwinian prediction (which should have falsified the theory as a whole) does not bring the entire Darwinist house of cards crashing down. Gould and Eldredge performed this feat in much the same way a cheap magician performs a parlor trick. All the evolution occurred in these "holes" in the record. That ain't science; how can the claim ever be tested, much less falsified? It boils down to an argument from silence.BarryA_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

GilDodgen wrote: "The main point of my post is that the mass media pass on speculation about chemical abiogenesis and Darwinian mechanisms as the source of all life as though this is all established fact. It is ubiquitous on science and nature shows. It is indicative of how effective materialist indoctrination has been among media elites." Your point is well taken. I have seen -- and been annoyed by -- numerous similarly irresponsible statements in the media. The good news is that many people intuitively know better than to buy into this kind of materialistic philosophy masquerading as science.Eric Anderson_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

Bugsy writes: "the Cambrian explosion (besides lasting millions of years) is based on quirks in fossilization, not any trouble with evolution, and the math behind irreducible complexity is bad." Is this serious? Wrong on all three counts: (i) the Cambrian explosion is not some limited "quirk" in fossilization, it is a pervasive characteristic of the fossil record; any claims to the contrary have the clear burden of proof, (ii) the Cambrian explosion may not be a problem for "evolution" in the general, broad, uselessly-vague sense, but it is clearly a problem for mainstream evolutionary theory and RM+NS, as acknowledged by Mr. Darwin himself, and (iii) the math behind IC can indeed be complex at the more esoteric levels (which is what Bill Dembski is currently working on), but the underlying basics (probabilistic resources and available time) are very simple and clear; no-one that I have heard, has given any kind of a reasonable explanation as to why the basic probabilities that apply everywhere else in our experience would not apply to the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the construction of new body parts and plans in the Cambrian explosion, and the construction of any particular IC system. Perhaps taking the metaphysical blinders off would help.Eric Anderson_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

Stanton and others. Punctuated equilibrium is an observation, but does it explain very much? Is there a new mechanism posited? Relativity is much different. But why did Darwin put such store in gradualism, and why is gradualism not seen as so important anymore?Collin_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

BarryA
[Punctuated equilibrium] is an explanation for what is NOT observed, i.e., gradualism as predicted by Darwin.[/blockquote] In the same sense that Relativity as explained by Einstein is an observation of what Newton failed to observe.
Stanton Rockwell_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

In regards to origin of Life research for ID; Implementation of information is key. I hold to the fact that information is fundamentally a "spiritual entity". I also hold that our memories, as well as our consciousness, are primarily based in a "spiritual realm" and feel that the evidence I have presented thus far, is compelling to that position, as counterintuitive as it is for some people on this blog to see. As such I hold that information is able to be tested and verified to interact with matter. In support of my assertion, I started looking at how memories form and came across this quote: http://www.irishscientist.ie/2000/contents.asp?contentxml=196s.xml&contentxsl=insight3.xsl "Following synthesis, the NCAM protein can undergo a unique modification that involves the addition of long chains of negatively charged sugars - termed polysialic acid (PSA). Although the functional significance of this modification is unclear it appears to play a pivotal role in memory formation. In the 10-12 hour post-training time, the period that immediately precedes the decline of the transiently overproduced synapses, a defined population of hippocampal nerve cells specifically increase their expression of NCAM PSA." NOTE: termed polysialic acid (PSA) I could not help noticing it is an acid as DNA is! Thus it seems that memories, (information) formation, in our brains involves something somewhat resembling the DNA molecule...although DNA has a fundamental difference... Chemically, DNA is a long polymer of simple units called nucleotides, with a backbone made of sugars and phosphate groups joined by ester bonds. Attached to each sugar is one of four types of molecules called bases. Yet the basic point I'm making is that this is a positive confirmation of "intelligence" directing specific matter into specific arrangements. Thus confirming on the most basic level, that the ID origin of life scenario is entirely plausible from preliminary empirical evidence.bornagain77_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

ellazimm,
Jehu: I understand that you believe Dr Behe to be correct, he is very intelligent. But there are a lot of people who disagree with him and I can’t imagine how hundreds of researchers can be coerced into toeing any party line. Academics HATE to be told what to do. I certainly did when I was one. I was very naughty in fact.
After endless hours of debate and research, I know Behe is correct. As for how hundreds of researchers are "coerced into toeing the party line" I am afraid that you are trivializing the power of an entrenched scientific view point. Additionally, the topic of Darwinism carries with it enormous metaphysical emplications. So it is not so much that everybody is coerced, it is that they have been converted to the Darwinist world view, much in the same way one becomes converted to a political or religious world view. Michael Crichton has an excellent presentation on how accepted scientific thought can be wrong, although he is emphasizing global warming in particular. Here is the link. http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.htmlJehu_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

Carl writes: "Punctuated equilibrium is hardly “speculation.” It’s an explanation for what is observed." Correction. It is an explanation for what is NOT observed, i.e., gradualism as predicted by Darwin.BarryA_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

Shaner74, That's awesome; maybe they could call a pluto type planet "Lamarck 1" just for good measure.Collin_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

Does anyone remember that special that Discovery Channel did a few years ago about alien planets, and what we might find on some future mission? I remember it was chock full of materialist propaganda. There were even intelligent machines thrown in for good measure. The planets were named "Darwin IV", "Darwin V", etc... Because after all, in the future, Darwin will rule the world and deserve the first planets we find supporting life to be named after him.shaner74_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

"Gould was a hardcore Darwinian, the Cambrian explosion (besides lasting millions of years) is based on quirks in fossilization, not any trouble with evolution, and the math behind irreducible complexity is bad." I feel like I'm reading the ARN blog. Glad we cleared up that whole "Cambrian" thing though. We also got rid of IC. Not bad for one post. We already took care of OOL in post #3.shaner74_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Ellazimm -- Why a chemical origin of life? Life on earth could have started from a microbe on a meteorite, no one has ruled that out. But there’s not much to test in that. You can hypothesise that certain chemical reactions may or may not have occurred and then test that however. BUT the point is that the claim was made that life began as a "chemical reaction" (albeit an unknown one) although there is no way to make certain of even that. And I'll ditto the appreciation of the tone you bring to the discussion.tribune7_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

Bugsy, "I believe it’s been vanished, like a Bolshevik’s embarrassing relative. Seeing that kind of thing is pretty disillusioning." That's a pretty nasty assumption. Frankly I'd like to read it, if it's still around. (For what it's worth, I found that Dr. Dembski lists the paper on the Design Inference website as "currently under review," but the link is a 404 Not Found.) Any non-snarky answers as to what happened to that paper? Anybody know? Maybe it's coming out in a journal, which would mark the a real coup for the evo-info lab.getawitness_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Bugsy, I hope that you do not just throw your hands up and say "evolution must be true" just because some of the advances in ID are halting. Even if you decide that darwinism is the best theory to fit the data, realize that it doesn't really fit the data very well at all. Before considering ID, first evaluate the strength of darwinism. There really are two questions that we ask here: 1. how strong is darwinism/naturalistic evolution? and 2. How strong is the case for Intelligent design? Don't assume the answer to #1 is "good" because the answer to #2 is "nascent."Collin_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

I suppose not. "Hopeful" at best.Bugsy_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

Bugsy, Were you ever "illusioned" in the first place?Collin_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Carl Sachs, All you presented about punctuated equilibriium was speculation. There is no evidence for any mechanism behind the sudden changes, only speculation. Do you know the difference? Here is a quote from James Valentine "Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas. Although once we get into the fossil record where we got a complete fossil record we can see the gradual changes within lineages as Darwin predicted."jerry_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

Patrick, I agree that MacNeill may not be popular amongst many evolutionary biologist but Provine is his mentor and colleague and it sounds like Provine agrees with MacNeill and Provine is I think well regarded. MacNeill was asked by the Teaching Company to do a course on Evolutionary biology and psychology. I don't know the status of it but not all courses they initiate end up in production. So this might say something about his status. Here is what MacNeill said about macroevolution "As for macroevolution, I agree that at the present time we have little or no formal theory predicting the observed patterns of change in deep evolutionary time. This is one reason why I have asserted that the so-called “modern evolutionary synthesis” of the mid-20th century is “dead” "jerry_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

Punctuated equilibrium is hardly "speculation." It's an explanation for what is observed. It is observed that the fossil record does not, in general, show gradual transitions from one species to another. (Whereas there are transitional species from one major family, order, or class to another.) Two candidate explanations: 1) there are gradual transitions between species, but they are not preserved well, i.e. the fossil record is spotty. 2) the fossil record is accurate, and evolutionary patterns are generally ones of long-term stasis and sudden change. Evidence: in some cases where the fossil record is extremely accurate, such as with trilobites (Eldredge's specialty) and Pleistocene snails (Gould's specialty) the pattern of equilibrium and punctuation is still observed. The claim that "Darwinian mechanisms cannot explain the Cambrian explosion" contains an equivocation on just what 'Darwinian mechanisms' are supposed to be and how they are supposed to work. Valentine does not, so far as I can tell, doubt that variation and selection are necessary in order to explain "the origins of phyla." The question is, are they sufficient mechanisms? Answering that questions a lot more empirical research in order to understand what is varying, what is causing the variation, and how does selection work.Carl Sachs_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Jerry: To explain, the Cambrian has a large number of fossils because, supposedly, it's the era when parts capable of fossilization started evolving. It's remarkable but it's not that great a problem. I'm not a mathematician, but when I see papers being vanished and basic objections over whether math is being done backwards unanswered I perceive serious problems.Bugsy_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

"Speaking of which, does anybody know what happened to the paper with Dr. Marks called “Unacknowledged Information Costs in Evolutionary Computing: A Case Study on the Evolution of Nucleotide Binding Sites”? It used to be listed as “under review” at the evo-info lab but it’s not there any more. Does that mean it’s coming out in a journal? Where can I get a copy?" I believe it's been vanished, like a Bolshevik's embarrassing relative. Seeing that kind of thing is pretty disillusioning.Bugsy_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

Bugsy, Do you know anything about the Cambrian? Your statement is absurd. Nearly all the phyla were found there with very good fossilization. I suggest you read James Valentine's assessment of it. He is considered the leading paleontologist in the world on it. He say there is no way Darwinian processes can explain it. What is the bad math of IC? None of us here are aware of any so you could enlighten us. Gould was a hard core Darwinist but he found there was no proof for neo Darwinism so he speculated on something he called punctuated equilibrium. He had no evidence for it, just speculation. Evolutionary biology is the only science where speculation is evidence. If you have any evidence present it.jerry_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

Just last week a leading evolutionary biologist admitted on this blog that there was no evidence for macro evolution.
Don't want to nitpick but we should be careful to not misrepresent Darwinists. What he said was that there was evidence FOR inferring macroevolution (universal common descent) but not the HOW (the Darwinian mechanism). That statement is perfectly fine with ID proponents who prefer frontloading scenarios, panspermia, and the like. Also, you say "leading" evolutionary biologist but I've always been curious how many Darwinists would share his views.Patrick_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply