One of the main criticisms of Intelligent Design theory has been that its advocates never publish their work in peer-reviewed scientific journals. While the idea that science should be based on the “popular opinion” of the scientific community is rather peculiar, it does seem to be the way the game is played. And while the history of peer-reviewed journals has shown how flawed the approach can be, inevitably solid but unpopular arguments slip into the system.
Take, for example, the case of Stephen Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Meyer has managed to elbow his way into the process with a “review article” criticizing the idea that the materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. His article, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories”, was published in August 4th edition of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239).
As could be expected, it didn’t take long for the critics of ID to emerge from the shadows. The Panda’s Thumb, a blog dedicated to critiquing "the claims of the antievolution movement", was one of the first to respond, providing a a review of the review by Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry. The choice of respondents was rather peculiar (Matzke has a B.A. in biology and chemistry and an M.A. in geography; Elsberry’s Ph.D. is in Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences and Gishlick’s is in Vertebrate Paleontology) but the trio managed to crib together a lengthy rebuttal.
While I’m personally not well-versed in science, I am able to read and apply basic logic. Fortunately, that is all that is required to point out the numerous errors and obviousl flaws in their critique. While the article is too in-depth to give a point-by-point response, I have tried to be as thorough as possible:
The Cambrian explosion is a standard topic for antievolutionists. There are several reasons for this: many taxa make their first appearance in the Cambrian explosion; the amount of time within the period of the Cambrian explosion is geologically brief; and we have limited evidence from both within and before the Cambrian explosion on which to base analysis. The first two factors form the basis of an antievolutionary argument that evolutionary processes are insufficient to generate the observed range of diversity within the limited time available. The last factor is a general feature of the sorts of phenomena that antievolutionists prefer: not enough evidence has yet accrued to single out a definitive scientific account, so it is rhetorically easy for a pseudoscientific “alternative” to be offered as a competitor.
This is a common tactic used as PT, resorting to a “naturalism-of-the-gaps” argument. Evidence that supports their theory is considered to be uncontestable; Evidence that cast doubt on the theory is considered insufficient and must be discounted until we have further data that makes this evidence irrelevant. The fact that such future confirming data will appear is held as a matter of pure faith.
There is a vast difference between claiming that there is a lack of evidence and saying that the evidence does not support a certain type of theory. As Meyer points out, the fossil record is considered to be at least approximately reliable and yet shows an absence of clear transitional intermediate forms. Whatever the reason for the lack of transitional, it is hard to deny that they haven’t been found.
Meyer tries to evaluate morphological evolution by counting taxa, a totally meaningless endeavor for investigating the evolution of morphology. Most paleontologists gave up taxa-counting long ago and moved on to more useful realms of research regarding the Cambrian (see Budd and Jensen 2000). This is perhaps why most of Meyer’s citations for this section are to his own articles (themselves not in relevant scientific journals).
Actually, Meyer does no such thing. The paragraph in which he points out the number of new animal body plans that arose during this period is presented simply as a description of what occurred during the “Cambrian explosion.” This statement is made before any analysis and as the last sentence makes clear, “This analysis will, for the most part, therefore, not depend upon assumptions of either a long or short fuse for the Cambrian explosion, or upon a monophyletic or polyphyletic view of the early history of life.”
2. Meyer repeats the claim that there are no transitional fossils for the Cambrian phyla. This is a standard ploy of the Young-Earth Creationists (see Padian and Angielczyk 1999 for extended discussion of this tactic and its problems). Meyer shows a complete lack of understanding of both the fossil record and the transitional morphologies it exhibits (even during the Cambrian explosion; for a recent example of transitional forms in the Cambrian explosion see Shu et al. 2004) as well as the literature he himself cites.
Here is what Meyer actually says:
To say that the fauna of the Cambrian period appeared in a geologically sudden manner also implies the absence of clear transitional intermediate forms connecting Cambrian animals with simpler pre-Cambrian forms. And, indeed, in almost all cases, the Cambrian animals have no clear morphological antecedents in earlier Vendian or Precambrian fauna.
The PT critics claim that this is a “standard creationist ploy of YEC’ers” yet fail to address the citations that Meyer uses to support this point:
Miklos, G. L. G. 1993. Emergence of organizational complexities during metazoan evolution: perspectives from molecular biology, palaeontology and neo-Darwinism.--Mem. Ass. Australas. Palaeontols, 15:7-41
Erwin, J. Valentine, & D. Jablonski. 1997. The origin of animal body plans.--American Scientist 85:126-137.
Steiner, M., & R. Reitner. 2001. Evidence of organic structures in Ediacara-type fossils and associated microbial mats.--Geology 29(12):1119-1122.
Conway Morris, S. 1998a. The question of metazoan monophyly and the fossil record.--Progress in Molecular and Subcellular Biology 21:1-9.
Valentine, & D. Jablonski. 2003. Morphological and developmental macroevolution: a paleontological perspective.--International Journal of Developmental Biology 47:517-522.
Are we to assume that all of these journal articles were written by “creationists?”
3. Meyer attempts to argue that the “gaps” in the fossil record reflect an actual lack of ancestors for Cambrian phyla and subphyla. …
The PT’ers spend the next 240 words building a strawman so that they can knock it down. In their desperation to try to link Meyer with the arguments of the YEC’ers they completely miss the point of including this material. Meyer points out that the “gaps” in the fossil record call into question whether the Cambrian explosion had a “short fuse” or a “long fuse.” His purpose in mentioning this point is simply to clarify that his analysis does not depend on the assumptions of either view. As he makes clear, “This review will not address these questions of historical pattern. Instead, it will analyze whether the neo-Darwinian process of mutation and selection, or other processes of evolutionary change, can generate the form and information necessary to produce the animals that arise in the Cambrian.”
1. Meyer invokes Dembski’s “specified complexity”/”complex specified information” (SC/CSI) as somehow relevant to the Cambrian explosion. However, under Dembski’s technical definition, CSI is not just the conjoint use of the nontechnical words “specified” (as in “functional”) and “complexity”, as Meyer erroneously asserts. According to Dembski’s technical definition, improbability of appearance under natural causes is part of the *definition* of CSI. Only after one has determined that something is wildly improbable under natural causes can one conclude that something has CSI. You can’t just say, “boy, that sure is specific and complicated, it must have lots of CSI” and conclude that evolution is impossible. Therefore, Meyer’s waving about of the term “CSI” as evidence against evolution is both useless for his argument, and an incorrect usage of Dembski (although Dembski himself is very inconsistent, conflating popular and technical uses of his “CSI,” which is almost certainly why Meyer made this mistake. See here for examples of definitional inconsistency.).
Here is how Dembski actually defines “specified complexity”:
The distinction between specified and unspecified information may now be defined as follows: the actualization of a possibility (i.e., information) is specified if independently of the possibility's actualization, the possibility is identifiable by means of a pattern. If not, then the information is unspecified.
That appears to be exactly the way that Meyer uses the term:
1. Thus, we can pose a question, not only about the origin of genetic information, but also about the origin of the information necessary to generate form and structure at levels higher than that present in individual proteins. We must also ask about the origin of the “specified complexity,” as opposed to mere complexity, that characterizes the new genes, proteins, cell types and body plans that arose in the Cambrian explosion. Dembski (2002) has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity. This review will use this term as well.
2. Meyer relies on Dembski’s “specified complexity,” but even if he used it correctly (by rigorously applying Dembski’s filter, criteria, and probability calculations), Dembski’s filter has never been demonstrated to be able to distinguish anything in the biological realm — it has never been successfully applied by anyone to any biological phenomena (Elsberry and Shallit, 2003).
This might be a valid point if Meyer claimed to detect “specified complexity” by using Dembski’s explanatory filter. But that is not his purpose or his point. Meyer is only pointing out where specified complexity is found.
3. Meyer claims, “The Cambrian explosion represents a remarkable jump in the specified complexity or ‘complex specified information’ (CSI) of the biological world.” Yet to substantiate this, Meyer would have to yield up the details of the application of Dembski’s “generic chance elimination argument” to this event, which he does not do. There’s small wonder in that, for the total number of attempted uses of Dembski’s CSI in any even partially rigorous way number a meager four (Elsberry and Shallit, 2003).
Again, we find the PT critics attempting to add something to Meyer’s argument that isn’t required. Meyer points out that “specified complexity” -- functional biological information – appears to have increased during the Cambrian explosion. He is not making an argument (at least not yet) for how it occurred. He is merely pointing out that it exists.
4. Meyer claims, “One way to estimate the amount of new CSI that appeared with the Cambrian animals is to count the number of new cell types that emerged with them (Valentine 1995:91-93)” (p.217). This may be an estimate of something, and at least signals some sort of quantitative approach, but we may be certain that the quantity found has nothing to do with Dembski’s CSI. The quantitative element of Dembski’s CSI is an estimate of the probability of appearance (under natural processes or random assembly, as Dembski shifts background assumptions opportunistically), and has nothing to do with counting numbers of cell types.
Notice that in point #1 they claim that Meyer had erroneously used Dembski’s term (as they understood it) for “specified complexity”. Next they claim (#2) that Meyer has failed to use Dembski’s “explanatory filter” and then go on to claim (#3) that Meyer has not shown the data from this filter (which, we should remember, Meyer never claimed to be using). They finally add the last strands of hay to their strawman by criticizing Meyer for using another method other than Dembski’s!
1. Meyer argues that “many scientists and mathematicians have questioned the ability of mutation and selection to generate information in the form of novel genes and proteins” (p. 218). He makes statements to this effect throughout the paper. Meyer does not say who these scientists are, and in particular does not say whether or not any of them are biologists. The origin of new genes and proteins is actually a common, fairly trivial event, well-known to anyone who spends a modicum of effort investigating the scientific literature. The evolution of new genes has been observed in the lab, in the wild, inferred in great detail between closely-related modern species, and reconstructed in hundreds of cases by comparing the genomes from organisms sequenced in genome projects over the last decade (see Long 2001 and related articles, and below).
Actually, Meyer claims that Michael Denton, a biologist, is one of the people who make just such a claim:
Denton (1986:301-324) and others have argued that similar constraints apply to genes and proteins. They have questioned whether an undirected search via mutation and selection would have a reasonable chance of locating new islands of function--representing fundamentally new genes or proteins--within the time available (Eden 1967, Shutzenberger 1967, Lovtrup 1979).
2. Meyer compares DNA sequences to human language. In this he follows Denton’s (1986) Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Denton (1986) argued that meaningful sentences are isolated from each other: it is usually impossible to convert one sentence to another via a series of random letter changes, where each intermediate sentence has meaning. Like Denton (1986), Meyer applies the same argument to gene and protein sequences, concluding that they, like meaningful sentences, must have been produced by intelligent agents. The analogy between language and biological sequence is poor for many reasons; starting with the most obvious point of disanalogy, proteins can lose 80% or more of their sequence similarity and retain the same structure and function (a random example is here). Let’s examine an English phrase where four out of five characters have been replaced with a randomly generated text string. See if you can determine the original meaning of this text string:
Tnbpursutd euckilecuitn tiioismdeetneia niophvlgorciizooltccilhseema er [1]
Eighty percent loss of sequence identity is fatal to English sentences. Clearly proteins are much less specified than language.
This is a rather bold claim. Is it really true that any protein sequence can lose 80% or more of the sequence similarity and retain the same structure and function? If so, then how is it possible for the sequences to convey information at all?
3. Meyer cites Denton (1986) unhesitatingly. This is surprising because, while Denton advocated in 1986 that biology adopt a typological view of life, he has abandoned this view (Denton 1998). Among other things, Denton wrote, “One of the most surprising discoveries which has arisen from DNA sequencing has been the remarkable finding that the genomes of all organisms are clustered very close together in a tiny region of DNA sequence space forming a tree of related sequences that can all be interconverted via a series of tiny incremental natural steps.” (p. 276) Denton now accepts common descent and disagrees with the “intelligent design” advocates who conjecture the special creation of biological groups, regularly criticizing them for ignoring the overwhelming evidence (Denton 1999).
They PT critics claim that it is surprising that Meyer cites Denton “unhesitatingly.” What is more surprising is that they don’t simply dismiss Denton altogether. After all, the full title of the book they cite is “Nature's Destiny : How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe.” Denton may believe in “common descent” but he also claims in his book that: "The entire process of biological evolution from the origin of life to the emergence of man was somehow directed from the beginning." Denton is a proponent of “directed evolution, a position I’m not sure Meyer’s critics would subscribe to themselves.
4. Meyer’s case that the evolution of new genes and proteins is essentially impossible relies on just a few references from the scientific literature. For example, Meyer references Taylor et al. 2001, a paper entitled “Searching sequence space for protein catalysts” and available online at the PNAS website. But Taylor et al.’s recommendation for intelligent protein design is actually that it should mimic natural evolution: “[A]s in natural evolution, the design of new enzymes will require incremental strategies…”.
First, let’s look at what Meyer’s claims:
More recent protein studies (often using mutagenesis experiments) have shown that functional requirements place significant constraints on sequencing even at non-active site positions.
Now let’s follow the ellipses in the Taylor et al. citation:
Our estimate of the low frequency of protein catalysts in sequence space indicates that it will not be possible to isolate enzymes from unbiased random libraries in a single step. The required library sizes far exceed what is currently accessible by experiment, even with in vitro methods (31, 35). Instead, as in natural evolution, the design of new enzymes will require incremental strategies in which, for instance, a suitable scaffold is first generated, binding and catalytic groups are subsequently added, and the ensemble is optimized in an iterative fashion. Our two-stage approach to binary-patterned mutases and work on the redesign of existing enzymes (36–38) demonstrate the power of stepwise and modular procedures for directing the course of evolution. By iteratively combining combinatorial mutagenesis and selection with intelligent design, it may also prove possible to create novel protein scaffolds, unknown in nature, and to endow them with tailored catalytic activities.
Perhaps the PT critics can explain how this process can be arrived at by mutation and selection.
There is a large mass of evidence supporting the view that proteins are far less “specified” than Meyer asserts. Fully reviewing this would require an article in itself, and would be somewhat beside the point since Meyer’s claim is categorically disproven by the recent origin of novel genes by natural processes.
It is odd that they drop their criticism of the section and resort to claiming that Meyer’s claim is “categorical disproven” at the very point where he begins to address this issue:
Yet the extreme specificity and complexity of proteins presents a difficulty, not only for the chance origin of specified biological information (i.e., for random mutations acting alone), but also for selection and mutation acting in concert. Indeed, mutagenesis experiments cast doubt on each of the two scenarios by which neo-Darwinists envisioned new information arising from the mutation/selection mechanism (for review, see Lonnig 2001). For neo-Darwinism, new functional genes either arise from non-coding sections in the genome or from preexisting genes. Both scenarios are problematic.[emphasis added]
Meyer’s then goes on to address these problems and explain why mutation and selection are improbable.
We would like to pose a challenge to Meyer. There are a large number of documented cases of the evolutionary origin of new genes (again, a sample is here). We challenge Meyer to explain why he didn’t include them, or anything like them, in his review. We invite readers to wait to see whether or not Meyer ever addresses them at a later date and whether he can bring himself to admit that his most common, most frequent, and most central assertion in his paper is wildly incorrect and widely known to be so in the scientific literature. These points should not be controversial: even Michael Behe, the leading IDist and author of Darwin’s Black Box, admits that novel genes can evolve: “Antibiotics and pesticide resistance, antifreeze proteins in fish and plants, and more may indeed be explained by a Darwinian mechanism.” (Behe 2004, p. 356)
If we might be permitted a prediction, Meyer or his defenders will respond not by admitting their error on this point, but by engaging in calculated obfuscation over the definition of the words “novel” and “fundamentally.” They will then assert that, after all, yes, evolution can produce new genes and new information, but not “fundamentally new genes.” They will never clarify what exactly counts as fundamental novelty.
Once again the PT critics completely miss the point. Even a non-scientist like me can see that the issue Meyer’s is pointing out is not that evolution cannot produce new genes and new information but that it cannot do so by the process of random mutation and selection:
Thus, although this second neo-Darwinian scenario has the advantage of starting with functional genes and proteins, it also has a lethal disadvantage: any process of random mutation or rearrangement in the genome would in all probability generate nonfunctional intermediate sequences before fundamentally new functional genes or proteins would arise. Clearly, nonfunctional intermediate sequences confer no survival advantage on their host organisms. Natural selection favors only functional advantage. It cannot select or favor nucleotide sequences or polypeptide chains that do not yet perform biological functions, and still less will it favor sequences that efface or destroy preexisting function.
Evolving genes and proteins will range through a series of nonfunctional intermediate sequences that natural selection will not favor or preserve but will, in all probability, eliminate (Blanco et al. 1999, Axe 2000). When this happens, selection-driven evolution will cease. At this point, neutral evolution of the genome (unhinged from selective pressure) may ensue, but, as we have seen, such a process must overcome immense probabilistic hurdles, even granting cosmic time.
Morphological novelty
The origin of morphological novelty is also a large topic with an extensive literature, but unfortunately we can only discuss a limited number of topics in any depth here. To pick two issues, Meyer fails to incorporate any of the work on the origin of morphological novelties in geologically recent cases where evidence is fairly abundant, and Meyer also fails to discuss the crucial role that cooption plays in the origin of novelty. Below is a small sampling of the kinds of papers that Meyer would have had to address in this field in order to even begin to make a case that evolution cannot produce new morphologies:
Instead of actually addressing Meyer’s argument they point out what he did not include. That’s a shame because I would be interested in hearing how they respond to such claims as:
Thus, in each new generation, the form and structure of the cell arises as the result of both gene products and preexisting three-dimensional structure and organization. Cellular structures are built from proteins, but proteins find their way to correct locations in part because of preexisting three-dimensional patterns and organization inherent in cellular structures. Preexisting three-dimensional form present in the preceding generation (whether inherent in the cell membrane, the centrosomes, the cytoskeleton or other features of the fertilized egg) contributes to the production of form in the next generation. Neither structural proteins alone, nor the genes that code for them, are sufficient to determine the three-dimensional shape and structure of the entities they form. Gene products provide necessary, but not sufficient conditions, for the development of three-dimensional structure within cells, organs and body plans (Harold 1995:2767). But if this is so, then natural selection acting on genetic variation alone cannot produce the new forms that arise in history of life.
The Power of Negative Thinking
Negative argumentation against evolutionary theories seems to be the sole scientific content of “intelligent design”. That observation continues to hold true for this paper by Meyer.
This is one of the standard arguments used at Panda’s Thumb. While it may be true that ID does not win by default, a negative argument can be quite sufficient to prove that a theory is fatally flawed. Say, for example, you find that I have a car in Hawaii and I contend that I drove there from California. Once you understand the parameters needed (mainly a road that would reach from CA to HI) you could show the impossibility of my claim. While you may not have a suitable explanation for how the car actually arrived on the island my claim is still false. You do not need to present an alternate theory to prove that I am wrong.
The next section is a critique of Meyer’s understanding of Punctuated equilibria. They skip over the rest of his paper in order to propose a counterargument outling what Meyer failed to take into consideration. I look forward to reading this argument when it gets published in a peer-reviewed journal.
A Long Walk Off a Short Peer Review
The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (PBSW) is a respected, if somewhat obscure, biological journal specializing in papers of a systematic and taxonomic nature, such as the description of new species. A review of issues in evolutionary theory is decidedly not its typical fare, even disregarding the creationist nature of Meyer’s paper.
Now we get to another standard rhetorical device used at PT: the ad hominem. Papers on ID aren’t considered matters of science since they aren’t published in peer-reviewed journals, therefore any peer-reviewed journal that published an article on ID must have some ulterior motive. They even go so far as to ponder whether the process isn’t entirely fraudulent: “Given the abysmal quality of the science surrounding both information theory and the Cambrian explosion, it seems unlikely that it received review by experts in those fields. One wonders if the paper saw peer review at all.”
The fact that three scientists are casting doubt on the peer-review process is worthy of notice. Do they doubt only those published articles that question neo-Darwinism or are their doubts more general in nature? Are they claiming that peer-review is unreliable? If so, why is it necessary at all?
Richard Sternberg, the editor of the journal, told The Scientist that the three peer reviewers of the paper "all hold faculty positions in biological disciplines at prominent universities and research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, one at a major US public university, and another at a major overseas research institute."
"The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments but all found the paper meritorious, warranting publication," Sternberg said.
Sternberg also added that he was concerned that some in the science community have labeled him and Meyer as creationists. "It's fascinating how the 'creationist' label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory," he said. "The reaction to the paper by some [anti-creationist] extremists suggests that the thought police are alive and well in the scientific community."
Conclusion
There is nothing wrong with challenging conventional wisdom — continuing challenge is a core feature of science. But challengers should at least be aware of, read, cite, and specifically rebut the actual data that supports conventional wisdom, not merely construct a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious interpretations. Unless and until the “intelligent design” movement does this, they are not seriously in the game. They’re not even playing the same sport.
The PT critics are only kidding themselves. If a non-scientist like me can spot such obvious errors I can only imagine what the experts would find. My guess is that no one of any significance will ever read such a rebuttal because the members of PT will not be able to get their criticisms published in a peer-reviewed journal.
I don’t want to resort to the same type of well-poisoning that is common at PT, but anyone who has followed the blog since its inception knows that it is not as reputable as they would like to appear. As Jeremy Pierce, an adjunct instructor of philosophy at Syracuse, recently wrote:
I got into a debate on Panda's Thumb over this very issue, and the people there showed a complete inability to pay attention to what their interlocutor was saying. That's why I won't bother to go there anymore. When I first found out about the site, I had planned to link it. I went there, and it looked like an interesting site, where people on both sides of the issue could discuss the issues. In reality, it's a fanboy site for one side of the argument, and the only difference between it and something like Atrios, Democratic Underground, or sites run by Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly is that most of these people have a Ph.D. in a relevant field. It's pretty much the same sort of thing, though. They don't think there is an issue to be discussed. They say as much. Therefore, the only thing they can do when you challenge them on a claim, even one that doesn't threaten anything about evolutionary theory, is name-calling, jumping on people to criticize them for things they obviously didn't say, and straw men. In my case, I wasn't challenging any scientific point about contemporary evolutionary theory. I was simply saying that ID is philosophy and not science or religious dogma. A couple people saw this but insisted that since some ID people consider it science they would have to keep calling it creationism. There are probably good people doing good work there, but I was fairly overwhelmed by the signs that being in the scientific orthodoxy had led to an inability to think very clearly about anyone outside that orthodoxy. Telling someone that he doesn't understand the ID argument because he believes it to be philosophy and not religious dogma and then telling him that he really believes it to be science isn't exactly a good debating tactic. So they didn't get a link in my academic blogs section, even though what they claim to be about is the sort of thing I very much wanted to link to in that section.
I had the same experience and vowed never to return and waste my time. The site really isn’t about science but about defending against the “political” victory of ID into science education. While they may believe that is a worthy cause, they aren’t likely to win any admirers by the approach they take. If they want to be taken seriously they should do what Stephen Meyer did – publish in a peer-reviewed journal.
(See also: Pandas and Peers (Part II): Microdissecting Meyers)
1
Based on the threads I have read over at PT, the anti-ID'ers are long on vitriol and short on principled disputation. It hurts their credibility and weakens their argument. It reminds me of the old adage ... when you are short on arguments ... yell.
Jeremy Pierce's assessment is spot on.
posted on 09.06.2004 6:49 AM2
One amusing point to consider: why are dinosaur bones so hard to find, if these creatures existed for millions of years in each "great wave of evolution?" If a species exists for 5-10 million years, in its former habitats, its skeletons should be quite common. As it stands, we have found much in the way of ice age animals either, I'd wager.
Yes, I understand the alleged geological shifting which could put the skeletons well below the surface, but that aside, would it not stand to reason that dinosaur skeletons, if evolution be true, are quite common?
posted on 09.06.2004 9:28 AM3
"Yes, I understand the alleged geological shifting which could put the skeletons well below the surface, but that aside, would it not stand to reason that dinosaur skeletons, if evolution be true, are quite common?"
We should be amazed that the fossil is as complete as it is. The conditions necessary for preservation are quite rare. It's not a matter of where the fossils are; it's if they exist at all. Most life leaves no evidence of itself.
posted on 09.06.2004 10:56 AM4
First, an aside: Joe, my opinion is that it would simplify things if you would make your rebuttal shorter - there is so much to go through here, nobody can keep track of it all, and most don't have the time to go through all the details. You could pick three main points to go over, then put a link to your longer point-by-point rebuttal for those who are interested. Just a suggestion...
"This is a rather bold claim. Is it really true that any protein sequence can lose 80% or more of the sequence similarity and retain the same structure and function? If so, then how is it possible for the sequences to convey information at all?"
Since this is my area of expertise, I'll attempt a brief answer. We don't know, of course, whether it is true that any protein sequence can lose 80% of the sequence similarity and retain the same structure and function, since we can't test all possible sequences/structures, but we do know it is true for a large number of structures.
The other point, which I think is made frequently on PT, is that biological 'function' is a slippery word. Scientists have a hard time defining it precisely, because there are a variety of different levels of function: is it the function of the protein to catalyze a particular enzymatic reaction? To trigger a metabolic cascade? To respond to an external stimulus? All of these could be simultaneously true of a single protein, and all could be affected in various ways by a mutation. Say a mutation causes a 100-fold decrease in catalytic efficiency, but it still responds to the external stimulus and triggers the cascade. Does the protein still have the same function? Clearly it's enzymatic function is changed for the worse, but it might be the case that that mutation has little or no effect on the function of the cell or organism as a whole. The point is it is very difficult to define 'function' in a rigorous way, and in a way that applies to a wide variety of systems.
posted on 09.06.2004 11:56 AM5
One amusing point to consider: why are dinosaur bones so hard to find, if these creatures existed for millions of years in each "great wave of evolution?" If a species exists for 5-10 million years, in its former habitats, its skeletons should be quite common. As it stands, we have found much in the way of ice age animals either, I'd wager.Yes, I understand the alleged geological shifting which could put the skeletons well below the surface, but that aside, would it not stand to reason that dinosaur skeletons, if evolution be true, are quite common?
Well, Mike, it all depends on what you mean by "hard to find", and "quite common". All I have to say to answer your question is, "I don't think dinosaur bones are hard to find, and I think they are quite common." Do you know how common they, in fact, are? And do you have some quantifiable standard against which we can judge their prevalence?
posted on 09.06.2004 12:00 PM6
Here's an argument for you. If as these ID'ers claim, that the world that we live in is the product of some intelligent design, why does the design seem so unintelligent? I mean all around me I see children born with terrible deformities, natural disasters that kill scores, and the platapus. If I were to design the world that we lived in I would be sure to leave out all this sort of stuff. So does that mean I'm more intelligent than God? I think so. You all ought to read Bertrand Russell's "Why I'm not a Christian". He'll set you straight.
Moreover, I just can't believe that this argument is still around. It's been blown out of the water a million different ways by a million different people a million different times. Sure,it's managed to take on a slightgly new form in that the new ID'ers throw in a lot of scientific jargon as window dressing. The goal of all this is to show how incredibly complex the natural world is, which presumably leads to the inference that there must be an intelligent designer because it's just to complicated to happen on it's own.
For example, one of the claims that I've seen is the notion that the universe must be the prooduct of intelligent design because the chances of it forming in a manner sufficient to prevent it from collapsing back on itself are next to nothing.
There are a couple of obvious problems with this. First,if the universe did collapse back onto itself, and return to nothing more than that little dot the preceeded the big bang, there's nothing to prevent it from having another go at it. So, if the chances are one-in-a-million, but it has a million chances, it doesn't look so improbable after all. Second, consider this: Right now I am looking at a pizza I ordered. The probability of this pizza being created just the way it was is next to nothing. It could have a different amount of cheese than it does (no matter how slight); the toppings, or just one, could be placed just a fraction of an inch from where they are now; it could have expanded in millions of unique ways; the bubbles that appear could be form in countless ways. Given all this, the chances that my pizza is exactly like it is, and not like any of the countless other ways it could be, are incredibly remote. But do when then want to say that God must be behind the creation of my pizza. Does God work at Pizza Hut?
You all should just give up on trying to rationalize this silly little notion of yours. You are more than entitled to it (although Russell has some great points about what an immoral and evil belief system Christianity is). We all have rational beliefs. But when you try to rationalize them, you just come off, sad to say, as foolish.
7
Speaking of "straw men," why is it that critiques of "Neo-Darwinism" attack the strawman of nothin'-but-mutation-and-selection, ignoring endosymbiosis entirely? Why no citation (or even mention) of the work of Margulis, de Duve, etc?
posted on 09.06.2004 5:47 PM8
BCB,
1) why does the design seem so unintelligent? Please design life forms and show how your designs are better. Also, see The Gods Must Be Tidy.
2) I have read Russell. He's clueless.
3) Hate to burst your bubble, but if you can't rationalize your beliefs then they aren't rational.
4) You might be interested in Intelligent Design Quotes. Then again, you might not. But this is what some well-known scientists are saying.
9
Mike
"Yes, I understand the alleged geological shifting which could put the skeletons well below the surface, but that aside, would it not stand to reason that dinosaur skeletons, if evolution be true, are quite common?"
I don't think this is the case. There are many factors involved in a fossil being formed. Most don't seem to be that well understood at large.
But in any event, there can be many explanations as to why the fossil record is as we see it, meaning that it does not necessarily imply the truth or falsity of the claims of evolution.
posted on 09.06.2004 6:13 PM10
wrf3 says:
1) why does the design seem so unintelligent? Please design life forms and show how your designs are better. Also, see The Gods Must Be Tidy.
First, I think I did that already with the whole birth defects and natural disasters point. I guess I could make it clearer, so here goes:
It seems to me that the world would be better if it were free of all of the bad stuff, like earthquakes and deformaties and all that. So, if I were going to design the world, I just think it would be a good idea to exclude all that stuff. So, at best it's just carelessness, and this doesn't seem consistent with the whole notion of an intelligent designer. I mean he takes all this care into developing all of these super-complicated organisms but overlooks the big stuff that will result in the death and suffering of scores of people. I thought God was omniscient. Guess not, or else he would have known better. On the other hand, maybe he's just a sick jerk that gets a kick out of watching folks suffer. I'm not sure I can make my position any clearer than that without resorting to sock puppets or something.
Second, as far as your whole designing better life forms position is concerned, this is really non-responsive. Of course, I would leave out all the bad stuff as mentioned above. But more importantly, at the point that you challenge me to describe how I would create a life form, you are of course insinuating that I couldn't do it because it's too hard. Therefore, it must be God. This begs the question. What I would say is that organisms and the like are created through an unguided process governed by nothing more than the blind workings of science. What's more, my world view accounts for both the complexity in the natural world and all of the screw ups. That is, because the process is unguided, it's no surprise that things go wrong sometimes. Uh-oh...my world view has greater explainitory power than yours.
Then he says this:
2) I have read Russell. He's clueless.
A brilliant and devestating rebuttal. Why, seeing as how he's been absolutely proven to be clueless, I'm just going to throw all of his books into the fire. Good Show! (I'm not taking that out of context either. That was seriously the extent of his response)
Then this:
3) Hate to burst your bubble, but if you can't rationalize your beliefs then they aren't rational.
Huh? Yeah, and if you teach a child to read, they'll pass a literacy test. Mr. President...is that you? I agree, I think.
I'm gonna have to post this on my blog because it's just too funny.
Check it out:
posted on 09.06.2004 6:55 PM11
I'm glad that wrf3 can dismiss the venerable, accomplished, and brilliant Bertrand Russell from the lofty vantage point of his own superior intellect. How could I not have heard of this new mental giant before? And his links! So convincing!
posted on 09.06.2004 7:07 PM12
Rob,
I'm glad that wrf3 can dismiss the venerable, accomplished, and brilliant Bertrand Russell from the lofty vantage point of his own superior intellect. How could I not have heard of this new mental giant before? And his links! So convincing!
Sometime soon I'll go over Russel's "WIANAC" and show why, as wrf3 claims, he's "clueless." He may have had his moments of brilliance but that essay wasn't one of them.
posted on 09.06.2004 7:57 PM13
So, God is a sick jerk, because he hasn't designed everything on earth to last forever? Is that it? That would mean that your god would not have created you with free will, because such will would mean that you have a capacity to do evil and cause harm.
This is what passes for intelligent discourse among atheists. "There is evil in the world, so God himself must be evil or not there". What of the idea that we have eternal life in a perfect form, and that all things on earth pass away, including our mortal bodies, but our spirits live forever? Would that not indicate that God is One of infinite mercy and good, instead of an evil "jerk", as you call him?
What I'm about to say is ridiculous and stupid to the atheists: God created us with free will to do great good, or to do great evil. Or to do everything or nothing about great evil in our midst. He is our helper and guide, and creator, but much of what we must do we must do ourselves, with the hope and expectation of life eternal, at which time we enter a perfect world.
You would have built a world with no suffering, no pain, no problems. Would you really have? You have a choice every day to never lie, never hurt anyone's feelings, never cause pain--do you? Is every decision you make for the benefit of others, of mankind? Do you freely give away your possessions to ease the sufferings of the poor? I'm betting not--which only goes to show that the tiny little box you have put God in is not even one you have chosen for yourself, for the life that you have.
The Christian would say yes, there are problems on this earth, EVERY ONE OF WHICH derives from the sinful nature of man--and every man can choose, freely, that at that very instant he breathes his last in this imperfect, dying world, he can awake in another, and live forever. This is what God has created for us, for those who believe.
posted on 09.06.2004 8:25 PM14
Let's say I grant everything you just said. The problem is that you haven't dealt with all of the issues of natural evil. An earthquake or a volcano is completely independent of my will. That's still a big problem.
I'm also a bit confused by this:
So, God is a sick jerk, because he hasn't designed everything on earth to last forever? Is that it? That would mean that your god would not have created you with free will, because such will would mean that you have a capacity to do evil and cause harm.
I'm not sure where you're getting any of this. I don't have a God. I don't believe that he hasn't created everything on earth to last for ever because I don't think he created anything on earth, much less everything. I do believe that I have a capacity to do harm. I just don't know what you're talking about here.
posted on 09.06.2004 9:02 PM15
I apologize. I inferred that you used suffering in the world to say that God, if he were real, must be a jerk. Don't really quite know what you were saying, above, then.
However, you lose me here:
"What's more, my world view accounts for both the complexity in the natural world and all of the screw ups. That is, because the process is unguided, it's no surprise that things go wrong sometimes. Uh-oh...my world view has greater explainitory power than yours."
What has "gone wrong" in the process? If it is unguided, with no aim whatsoever, and no "guider", why isn't everything neutral? There are no "deformities", there is no "going wrong", can there be? Is it all just randomness? If so, it's just the luck of the draw, right?
posted on 09.06.2004 10:38 PM16
Kevin: What has "gone wrong" in the process? If it is unguided, with no aim whatsoever, and no "guider", why isn't everything neutral? There are no "deformities", there is no "going wrong", can there be? Is it all just randomness? If so, it's just the luck of the draw, right?
Yes, that's all right except for your claim that its all randomness. I never actually said that. I used the term "unguided process" quite deliberately. I don't think that gravity is totally random and tomorrow I might float off into space. There's a difference here. I also disagree with the notion that there are no deformaties for exactly the same reason. That is, typically organisms develop in pretty much that same way, but every so often something goes wrong in the sense that it is different from the typical process. You're right, though, in that it seems odd for me to use normative terms when explaining all this. My bad. I guess I would say something like atypical. But i still think this makes sense in the context of kids with thumbs growing out of their heads as "wrong" from our perspective.
posted on 09.06.2004 11:16 PM17
BCB:
It seems to me that the world would be better if it were free of all of the bad stuff, like earthquakes and deformaties and all that. So, if I were going to design the world, I just think it would be a good idea to exclude all that stuff.
It is interesting that you say that the world "would be better" without these things. But imagine for a minute a world in which all pain, woe, and misery were excluded in the way you suggest. How, having never experienced any of them, would you know that it was "better"?
If nobody had ever experienced pain or misery, would they be able to recognize pleasure and happiness as such?
You cannot know happiness unless you know what it is to be miserable. Without experience with its opposite, happiness would be a meaningless term because you wouldn't even recognize that you were happy nor enjoy and appreciate your happiness. In that sense, our mortal experience with pain and sorrow is what makes it possible for us to enjoy pleasure and happiness in this life and in the world to come.
John Milton said something similar this way:
Good and evil we know in the field of this world grow up together almost inseparably; and the knowledge of good is so involved and interwoven with the knowledge of evil, and in so many cunning resemblances hardly to be discerned. . . It was from out the rind of one apple tasted, that the knowledge of good and evil, as two twins cleaving together, leaped forth into the world. And perhaps this is that doom which Adam fell into of knowing good and evil, that is to say of knowing good by evil.
...
They are not skillful considerers of human things, who imagine to remove sin by removing the matter of sin. . .Suppose we could expel sin by this means; look how much we thus expel of sin, so much we expel of virtue: for the matter of them both is the same; remove that, and ye remove them both alike.
For those of us who believe, the deformaties and earthquakes of this life allow us to enjoy not only our own health and our seasons without quakes, and will enable us to enjoy the perfection of the next. Heaven would be wasted on beings who could not appreciate it because they had never known anything different.
posted on 09.07.2004 1:16 AM18
As the comic book guy on The Simpsons would say, Worst.. Review... Ever. That's in reference to your review of PT's review of Meyer's review. Most of your points are addressed in their review, as well as in subsequent posts.
posted on 09.07.2004 3:05 AM19
BCB commented:
[wrf3] 1) why does the design seem so unintelligent? Please design life forms and show how your designs are better. Also, see The Gods Must Be Tidy.
[BCB] First, I think I did that already with the whole birth defects and natural disasters point...
An empty claim. First, you need to do it so that we can see what happens under the law of unintended consequences. Second, it would be interesting to see if your creation would complain about the way you set things up. Third, you need to deal with the fact that many people find that suffering brings out a depth of love, compassion, and strength that they wouldn't otherwise know about. Some people find the silver lining in the cloud of suffering and wouldn't have it any other way. So who are you to say that the way things are now isn't optimal?
On the other hand, maybe he's [God] just a sick jerk that gets a kick out of watching folks suffer.
A statement worthy of Bertrand Russell himself. It's obvious that God doesn't get a kick out of watching folks suffer. God does not often alleviate suffering; rather, He transforms it. Jesus, quoting Isaiah, said, "The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favour and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn, and provide for those who grieve in Zion--to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair. They will be called oaks of righteousness, a planting of the LORD for the display of his splendour."
Second, as far as your whole designing better life forms position is concerned, this is really non-responsive. Of course, I would leave out all the bad stuff as mentioned above.
And, in doing so, you would leave out that which helps us to see what it really means to be human.
But more importantly, at the point that you challenge me to describe how I would create a life form, you are of course insinuating that I couldn't do it because it's too hard.
That's part of it. You claim that the current design isn't optimal, but you can't do any better. As I said, I'd love to know what your creatures think about your creation.
Therefore, it must be God.
That isn't a part of this argument.
...That is, because the process is unguided, it's no surprise that things go wrong sometimes. Uh-oh...my world view has greater explainitory power than yours.
No, it doesn't. I can explain why things go wrong just like you can. Atheism and Theism have the same explanatory power, although they obviously come up with different answers to the same problems.
Then he says this: "2) I have read Russell. He's clueless."
A brilliant and devestating rebuttal. Why, seeing as how he's been absolutely proven to be clueless, I'm just going to throw all of his books into the fire. Good Show! (I'm not taking that out of context either. That was seriously the extent of his response)
It wasn't intended to be exhaustive. If you like, I'll be happy to discuss it. Russell was a brilliant mathematician, but he was an inept theologian.
posted on 09.07.2004 9:36 AM20
So I've gotten two responses here that basically make the same point: evil exists in the world because God wants us to be able to experience happiness, but in order for this to happen we need to have the opposite of happiness as a frame of reference.
This just isn't going to cut it. First, given that God is omnipotent, it seems that he could easily create us with the capicity to feel happiness without any reference to evil. If you assert that he cannot, then you are essentially identifying a shortcoming on God's part, and this seems inconsistent with the notion of an omnipotent God. Second, it would seem that the converse holds true here. That is, in order to feel sadness I have to first feel happiness. But in order to feel happiness I must first feel happiness. This, then, is entirely circular. What about the first time I felt either happiness or sadness. I clearly had such a feeling, but the requisite antecedent was missing. Third, what about a deer that is walking along in the forest with no other being around, which suddenly impales itself on a broken tree branch and then dies a slow and painful death. All without anyone knowing about it. What purpose does that serve? Or are you going to assert that such a thing never happens?
21
My fingers are still sore from the lessons I gave the last time this thread topic came up.
But it would be nice if the ID apologists would recognize the fact that, *if* the ID folks did manage to prove that life on earth must have been intelligently designed (something that they will never be able to do), it opens the door (WIDE open) to the possibility that life was designed by entities, and it opens the door (WIDE open) to the possibility that the entities who designed life on earth are employed by other even more powerful and "intelligent" entities. In other words, the god of Christians could very well be just a lackey doing the bidding of much more powerful gods. The god of Christians may even be the slave of those gods. All of these scenarios are consistent with the ID theory and, in fact, at LEAST as likely as a "one single god" model for the mysterious designers.
posted on 09.07.2004 1:58 PM22
Richard Sternberg, the editor of the journal, told The Scientist that the three peer reviewers of the paper "all hold faculty positions in biological disciplines at prominent universities and research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, one at a major US public university, and another at a major overseas research institute.""The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments but all found the paper meritorious, warranting publication," Sternberg said.
Well, sorta. (Scroll all the way to the bottom.)
The paper by Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings (“The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239) represents a significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history. It was published without the prior knowledge of the Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or the associate editors. We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings.posted on 09.07.2004 1:59 PM
23
To quote a great politician:
"There you go again" Larry... ;-)
posted on 09.07.2004 2:07 PM24
wrf3 writes
"You claim that the current design isn't optimal, but you can't do any better."
Um, wrf3, are you joking? Think about what you wrote and let me know if you are joking or if you mean what you say. Just think for maybe, oh, twenty seconds about what you wrote. Thanks.
posted on 09.07.2004 2:08 PM25
It's not just design either (And yes I had a horrid weekend here in Florida thank you all for asking. You can read my personal account here http://uti.dinggraphics.com/)
It's also Intelligent Manufacture, not merely design. We puny humans can design all kinds of grand and intricate devices we cannot actually make. Orbiting Rosettes of Black Holes with stable Kerr Metrics, nanobots, Dyson Spheres and so on. Designing these objects is the easy part. It's the manufacture that's tough. That's why we, as representatives of science, always ask questions like "What exactly is it the designers did, where and when and how?"
And by the way, if we did design humans, I can think of a whole lot of things we'd do differently. Starting with using the same pipes and openings for breathing and eating and working all the way down to having our urethra pass through an organ prone to swelling in over 90% of middle-aged to elderly men. In fact, aging in general is pretty unpleasant, I think I'd start right there.
The other problem that comes up is what Larry alluded to: Knowing that our biome was designed by 'something(s)' for some unknown reason leaves us wondering just what kind of sick twisted freaks would think it necessary to include 100 individual species of parasitic worms, ticks, and other horribly painful infestations of our flesh, in that creation. I mean wouldn't just one burrowing flesh eating worm or maggot be enough?
Not to mention things like Leprosy or Ebola. Did the designer have it mostly designed except for one missing masterful final stroke and finally with a "Eureka" the designer hit on what he'd been missing to make the biome perfect; flesh eating bacteria?
How to explain this? Well, this is where IDC'ists abandon science altogether and don't even put up a pretense of analysis to frame their mythology within. There are bad things in the world because, we're told, a gal ate a magic apple 6000 years ago she wasn't supposed to eat, before she was capable of distinguishing right from wrong, and we're all being punished for her disobedience down the generations by a God who....Loves Us... is there anyone who does not understand how insanely illogical, not to mention monstrously inconsistent, all this is?
Anyway, IDC is a scam Joe, don't be taken in by it. There's plenty of Christian's who are scientists who can explain to you why it's totally FUBAR science. IDC is a group of people who are funded by ultra fundamentalist, and in some cases deconstructionist, Christian Biblical Literalists, using apologetic techniques discarded by honest thoughtful Christian clerics over one thousand years ago.
These guys want to have it both ways; they want the respect and credibility that comes with science, without being bound by the rules of science. And that is just not going to happen. Nor should it, for it would be a perversion of the science our culture is critically dependant upon.
Say what you want about science folks, call us atheist materialists or believers in blind chance, but science consisttently delivers the goods while religion does not. You have a kid with a perforated bowel or a ruptured spleen, take that kid in for a routine operation and he/she is fine. Take them to a faith healer, and they're dead in a week.
Confine religion to matters of faith, leave science alone, and we'll all be happier and healthier for it.
26
DS,
It's the manufacture that's tough.
So how is it accomplished by blind chance?
posted on 09.07.2004 3:58 PM27
Joe asked: So how is it accomplished by blind chance?
If by blind chance, you mean evolution AKA Natural Selection, it saves what works and the conservation of those changes are accumulated.
In this way what one might imperfectly call complexity 'ratchets' up over immense periods of time and large numbers of generations.
I realize some folks are fond of the term chance, or blind chance, and I understand what they generally mean when they use that term. but, Selection is technically the opposite of blind chance. Selection-meaning to differentially prefer or filter based on measurable criteria. The chance component comes from the variations in phenotype on which natural selection can act.
It takes both chance and selection to make it tick.
28
DS,
It takes both chance and selection to make it tick.
But that's the problem. Selection is nothing more than saying "this attribute slipped through the system." It is tautological and tells us nothing about why something happened.
Also, I find it peculiar that naturalists view chance as having almost magical properties of creation. Selection doesn't tell us the "how" and adding chance and a large amount of time doesn't help either. The main reason that ID has been able to gain such a foothold is because the average person refuses to give up on common sense in order to believe a speculative hypothesis.
posted on 09.07.2004 4:25 PM29
Joe,
"Also, I find it peculiar that naturalists view chance as having almost magical properties of creation. Selection doesn't tell us the "how" and adding chance and a large amount of time doesn't help either."
You have to define what you mean by chance - do you mean a mathematical model of DNA mutations, or do you mean a metaphysical chance (i.e. life is just a big accident)? I, as a Christian, don't think it is chance that the laws of nature are such that carbon is formed inside of stars, and is then spread around the galaxy when the star explodes, and has the properties that enable it to form complex molecules, and ultimately, complex organisms. But as a scientist, when I look at the statistical models of DNA mutations, I see no difference* between what we observe in real DNA sequences and in randomly generated sequences.
And 2+ billion years is a long time to build up more complex structures, if you are saving the best ones on a regular basis.
It's true that scientists don't understand the details of how evolution happened, but there are many areas of science where we don't understand the details. The catch is that ID doesn't offer any details, either.
"The main reason that ID has been able to gain such a foothold is because the average person refuses to give up on common sense in order to believe a speculative hypothesis."
The main reason ID has been able to gain popularity (I don't know what you mean by 'foothold' - it has no foothold within the scientific community) is because the average person is clueless about how science works and what evolutionary biology says, and because a large number of people have absorbed the idea that evolution is necessarily in conflict with religious belief (particularly conservative Christian belief), and they will obviously choose their religious beliefs over a scientific theory that they don't understand. The question is whether the conflict is necessary, and whether it has been portrayed accurately to the public by scientists and religious leaders.
*actually, there are differences, but the details are too complicated to explain here, and they are not due to Dembski's complex specified information, either.
posted on 09.07.2004 4:54 PM30
Joe said: Selection doesn't tell us the "how" and adding chance and a large amount of time doesn't help either.
Well, there are always (unfortunately or fortunately depending on how one views it, I guess) going to be details we do not know and cannot ever determine with confidence, because there simply may be no discernible record of those events in existence. Not to mention there are not enough people to examine every thing even if it was in fact available for examination. There's been something like 10 billion species of biota on earth, each lasting an average of ten million years and representing on average billions of individuals over millions of generations.
We don't know for example what specific embrylogy/homology took place on eumaniraptorian (feathered dinos) hands to produce the three fingers they have. We have reason to believe they formed from cartilage condensations lobes the same way modern bird digits develop, but lacking an actual dino egg/embryo to observe, or dino DNA to test for known markers, we cannot say for sure. But we can determine that birds and existing synapsid reptiles share an evolutionary history and we can look at gross morphology of feathered dinos and raptors to help form an educated opinion on the likelihood that birds descend from small running dinos.
Joe commented: But that's the problem. Selection is nothing more than saying "this attribute slipped through the system." It is tautological and tells us nothing about why something happened.
I've never really seen the problem with the tautology objection, although I've encountered it many times. A tautology is something which is always true under every permutation, such as in truth tables. Thus, if the only evidence you have is a tautology, it's not very good evidence. But I believe in this case you're confusing evidence for evolution with a mechanism of evolution.
And, it's not always true that the fittest will survive, because the fittest my happen to live on top of a brooding volcano or in the path of an ensuring pyroclastic flow and get wiped out through bad luck.
The reason I think folks use the tautology objection is that they think that all of evolution rests on the idea of survival of the fittest. Evolutionary Theory does not rest on that one pillar, it's simply a fact that differential reproduction and differential mortality affect the reproductive success of organisms. But evolutionary biology rests on mountains of clinical data of which you and I have explored but a tiny portion over the last few months.
There's really nothing magical about chance. Very unlikely events do occur given enough time and a large domain of possible permutations. We see this everyday.
Organisms do not reproduce perfect copies, this is known. By chance, some copies will be better able to cope with the environment, or live longer, or reproduce faster, and they will out compete copies which are not as fortunate. That's a fairly straightforward, commonsense, easily testable statement; and it has been repeatedly tested and repeatedly demonstrated to be a valid inference.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'why'. Scientifically why would vary with each new feature and each generation. Some of those why's we do know and many we do not.
EG: We have good reason to believe that large dinos and large animals in general were unable to survive the K-T Impact Event because they could not 'hide' from the radically changing elements like small mammals, alligators, or frogs can. That's 'why' smaller creatures lived and large ones did not.
Joe said: The main reason that ID has been able to gain such a foothold is because the average person refuses to give up on common sense in order to believe a speculative hypothesis.
IDC has no foothold at all in the scientific community except among a tiny minority of highly biased and privately funded, mostly non biology, scientists. Is it really surprising to you that scientists, especially one who is religious, would sell out for money? Industry scientists do that everyday and have for over 100 years. You can find scientists a few years ago who would stand up in court and swear that smoking was not bad for your health. They were selling out, and that's what is happening at the DI.
There is no testable theory of IDC, only creationist objections to evolution dressed up like science.
I understand your longing to want this to be true, but as of right now, there is no compelling evidence for IDC or a deity of the type you desire. That doesn't mean it does not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.
There may someday be such evidence for IDC or even directly for the Christian Deity, and it could conceivably be uncovered by someone at the DI kicking off a debate that leads science in a new direction. Stuff like that has happened in the past. But that specific event has not happened yet, and it may never happen. So I wouldn't count on it happening or hang my faith on it if my faith were an important component in my life.
posted on 09.07.2004 5:01 PM31
Joe writes:
"Selection is nothing more than saying "this attribute slipped through the system."
While some "attributes" (by necessity, arbitrarily defined) do not provide any obvious selective (i.e., reproductive or fitness) advantage to an organism, others certainly do. Giraffe's long necks enable them to eat what other herbivores around them cannot eat. They can exploit resources unavailable to their competitors. How did a giraffe's long neck "slip through the system" ? Animals with genetic predispositions to longer necks tended to eat more and reproduce more.
"It is tautological and tells us nothing about why something happened."
What do you mean "why"? Do you mean "why" do giraffe's have long necks and not just really really long legs and short necks? Or do you mean "why" didn't giraffe's become carnivorous? Or "why" didn't they evolve solar panels for wings?
"Also, I find it peculiar that naturalists view chance as having almost magical properties of creation."
Nothing magic about it. What is magic about a healthier organism reproducing more frequently than an unhealthy organism so that a population eventually consists mostly (if not solely) of the healthier organisms?
"Selection doesn't tell us the "how" and adding chance and a large amount of time doesn't help either."
Chance and time help a lot. Give me 5,000 years and a thousand dogs and I'll give you a dog that looks like a cat. Any reason to doubt this is possible? Why?
Nature had access to millions and millions of carnivorous mammals, thousands of environments to provide selection, and a millions of years for selection to occur. What's so suprising about the diversity of the life forms which have lived, continue to live, on earth?
"The main reason that ID has been able to gain such a foothold is because the average person refuses to give up on common sense in order to believe a speculative hypothesis."
ID has a foothold among evangelical Christians but that's about it, Joe. Once the average person knows the facts about ID apologists, the average person draws the same conclusions about ID apologists that the average person draws about the Swift Boat Veterans when the average person knows the facts about the Swift Boat Veterans, i.e., the conclusion is that both groups deal in falsehoods in their attempt to fulfil a transparent agenda (interestingly, both groups are funded by conservative wingnuts -- why is that, I wonder?).
posted on 09.07.2004 5:11 PM32
"But it would be nice if the ID apologists would recognize the fact that, *if* the ID folks did manage to prove that life on earth must have been intelligently designed (something that they will never be able to do)"
This says it all. You've eliminated ANY possibility in your mind that the universe is created. (gee, what a surprise) It seems to me that every piece of evidence you look at will be through the lenses of pure chance? So, is it true to say it's impossible for you to believe - because, according to you, there is no evidence to believe in?
Joe, are you (maybe you have already) gonna post on the begining of the life, universe, matter, etc.? The anti-Christ's here only deal with slime to themselves, but not before the slime. I'd love to here that captivating story...
posted on 09.07.2004 8:54 PM33
A few comments:
"This is a rather bold claim. Is it really true that any protein sequence can lose 80% or more of the sequence similarity and retain the same structure and function?"
Any protein? Probably not. Some proteins? Almost certainly. I just spent about 10 minutes checking a single example. Aligning the Drosophila melanogaster Engrailed gene with the mouse Engrailed 1 gene shows that 138 of the 552 amino acids in the Drosphila protein are identical to the mouse gene. That's 25% sequence identity. Not quite 80% difference, but pretty high. Experiments using the Drosophila engrailed gene in transgenic mice shows that it can replace many (though not all) of the functions of the Mouse En1 gene. How much of the "function" of a sentence would be left if 75% of the letters were changed?
See: Hanks et al., (1998) "Drosophila engrailed can substitute for mouse Engrailed1 function in mid-hindbrain, but not limb development" Development 125:4521-4530.
Mouse Engrailed-1 and Engrailed-2 genes are only 44% identical, yet the Engrailed-2 can apparently perform all of the functions of Engrailed-1. Take a look at: Hanks, et al. (1995) "Rescue of the En-1 mutant phenotype by replacement of En-1 with En-2." Science 269: 679-82.
"If so, then how is it possible for the sequences to convey information at all?"
Get thee to a genetics textbook. But in the meantime, you might want to consider the possibility that different amino acids may have similar biochemical characteristics, and some protein functions may be dependent on a relatively few amino acids in a longer peptide that functions to keep the critical residues in approximately the correct position.
"Even a non-scientist like me can see that the issue Meyer’s is pointing out is not that evolution cannot produce new genes and new information but that it cannot do so by the process of random mutation and selection."
The human salivary amylase gene is thought to have evolved via gene duplication of the pancreatic amylase gene followed by insertion of a retrovirus into the promoter region. The retroviral sequences confer salivary gland expression. Which part of the evolution of the salivary amylase gene could not have occurred via random mutation and selection?
Ting et al. (1992) "Endogenous retroviral sequences are required for tissue-specific expression of a human salivary amylase gene" Genes and Development 6:1457-65
posted on 09.10.2004 1:24 PM34
CDM
"This says it all. You've eliminated ANY possibility in your mind that the universe is created."
No I didn't. Read carefully, my friend, and think before you post. I said that the ID folks will never be able to PROVE that the universe is created. This is a big difference which I would have hoped you could recognize. I'll leave it up to you to figure out WHY it will be impossible for the ID folks to PROVE that the universe was created by the God of Christians. That will be good exercise for your brain.
posted on 09.10.2004 2:14 PM35
"The PT critics claim that this is a “standard creationist ploy of YEC’ers” yet fail to address the citations that Meyer uses to support this point:
****
Valentine, & D. Jablonski. 2003. Morphological and developmental macroevolution: a paleontological perspective.--International Journal of Developmental Biology 47:517-522."
That statement is now flatly inaccurate and I'd request you update your post to reflect it. The Panda's Thumb crew quotes extensively from Valentine showing that Valentine says the (stand by for drum roll!) opposite of the proposition cited by Meyers.
The question is not whether PT failed to address Meyers' arguments--they addressed them. It's what Meyers was thinking when he misquoted Valentine.
posted on 09.10.2004 8:12 PM36
Joe McFaul,
That statement is now flatly inaccurate and I'd request you update your post to reflect it. The Panda's Thumb crew quotes extensively from Valentine showing that Valentine says the (stand by for drum roll!) opposite of the proposition cited by Meyers.
In order to see if I had erred in making my claim, I rechecked the post at PT. I couldn't find any quote by Valentine, much less "extensive" ones. Could you point those out for me?
posted on 09.11.2004 12:18 AM37
That link would be right here.
All hail Google.
posted on 09.12.2004 4:03 PM38
http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/
Read that paper carefully. Meyer's basic
premise fails.
39
This is ridiculous. All organisms to have lived on earth descended from one of, at most, a few single-celled microorganisms that lived about 3.8 billion years ago. It's not even an issue. We are learning more about how it happened. But *that* it happened is not an issue.
For those who don't think it happened, what happened instead? For example, what organisms, if any, did the deity or extraterrestrial proximately cause? Did the deity turn inert matter -- poof! -- directly into two elephants, one male and one female? Did the deity turn inert matter into the first aardvarks? T-Rexex? Humans? And what evidence, if any, suggests that a deity did this? This scenario is obviously absurd, so absurd as to be ridiculous.
posted on 09.15.2004 7:30 PM