For all their disagreements, evolutionists strongly agree that evolution is a fact, just as gravity is a fact. There is no question that evolution occurred. And since evolution is as certain as gravity, those who do not assent must not be rational, or they must have ulterior motives. If there are scientific questions about evolution (and there are), they merely relate to the question of how evolution occurred, not whether evolution occurred. Those who point out that the scientific evidence does not bode well for evolution must understand that such evidence can in no way call the fact of evolution into doubt. The scientific evidence can only bear on questions of how evolution occurred.Now this logic might be reasonable if the scientific problems with evolution were minor compared to the supporting evidence. We certainly do not doubt the fact of gravity even though we do not understand the details of how it works. But then again, the evidence for gravity is rather strong. In the case of evolution, it is the other way around. In the case of evolution, it is the problems which are rather strong.
We don't understand how life could have first evolved, we don't understand how multicellular organisms could have evolved from unicellular organisms, we don't understand how identical unconstrained DNA sequences could be conserved in distant species, we don't understand how shocking differences could have evolved in otherwise similar species, we don't understand how consciousness could have evolved, we don't understand how adaptive mechanisms could have evolved, we don't understand how a thousand and one complex structures, superior to our best military machines, could have evolved, we don't understand how ..., well you get the idea.
In light of the scientific evidence, the fact that evolutionists shout down any dissent makes them look more like the Wizard of Oz than sober scientists. Consider, for instance, the problem of how multicellular organisms could have evolved from unicellular organisms. Bob Holmes reported on this last year in The NewScientist. One problem is that such an evolutionary move must have occurred quickly, without leaving any evidence. As one evolution admitted, "The different branches of the animal tree evolved very rapidly in a short period, a long time ago."
Another problem is that reconstructions of the evolutionary tree are not stable. Was the ancestor of multicellular organisms a choanoflagellate? Or was it a placozoan, or a ctenophore, or even a sponge larva? Different methods lead to different reconstructions. And of course the move to multicellular organisms required more complex designs. Not surprisingly, the details of early animal evolution are still hotly debated.
While evolutionists can provide plenty of guesses about how multicellular organisms could have evolved from unicellular organisms, the fact is evolutionists have no idea how they actually evolved. And if evolutionists have no idea how they evolved, can we really be sure that they did evolve? Evolutionists scoff at such skepticism. It is unwarranted, they say, because evolution is a fact. It seems that rather than the scientific evidence putting to rest problems with the fact of evolution, it is the fact of evolution that is putting to rest problems with the scientific evidence.
Dr. Hunter:
ReplyDelete[T]he fact is evolutionists have no idea how [multicellurlar oganisms] actually evolved. And if evolutionists have no idea how they evolved, can we really be sure that they did evolve?
Thank you for answering my question! If you have read any of my other posts on your blog, you will know that I have been asking an epistomological question: How do scientists
know that the putative mechanism for evolulution can accomplish what is claimed for it?
I was hoping to get the answer from a defender of the theory of evolution, but I somehow doubted that one would actually come out and say that he really doesn't know how evolution works.
As a layman who has read only the popular literature and blogs such as yours, the fact that most discussions rarely go beyond the gene-protein link makes it easy to get in the habit of thinking that that's all there is. I know there is more to it than that, and that leads to the questions I have.
Is not an understandng of how an animal is built a prerequisite to understanding how an animal could evolve? Do biologists yet know how the information in the genome (and elsewhere in the cell, if that is the case) is used to build an animal?
To build something requires plans, process, and parts. In other words, what we're going to build, how we're going to build it, and the parts that are needed to build what we're going to build.
All this "process engineering information", it seems to me, has to manifest itself somewhere (or somehow, if information is inherent in the process itself) in the cell. Where are the plans stored? What keeps track of the manufacturing process itself, that is, what makes sure that the right parts arrive at the right place at the right time? (And many more similar questions, but you get the idea.)
Hi Doublee,
ReplyDelete'I was hoping to get the answer from a defender of the theory of evolution, but I somehow doubted that one would actually come out and say that he really doesn't know how evolution works.'
I'll say it mate, I really don't know exactly how evolution has done it... but there is a lot of stuff to make me think that it has managed it somehow and it is just me that is missing the details.
'most discussions rarely go beyond the gene-protein link makes it easy to get in the habit of thinking that that's all there is.'
You are right, that isn't all there is. DNA is subject to modifications such as methylation, which alters the level of protein that can be transcribed from it. Proteins also, can be modified by various molecules or other proteins being 'stuck' to them in eg, methylation, acetylation, NEDDylation, SUMOylation. All these modifications can subtley or blatently affect the proteins roles/performance.
RNA is an incredibly important part of the whole sheenanigans. It is the intermediary between DNA and protein and is subject to numerous modifications that control the final cellular level of protein that it codes for and even the proteins final structure which can then have the knock on effect of altering the 'work' the protein does.
RNA has other roles in the cell which are not to do with directly producing protein. Namely, non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) have been shown to regulate gene expression and feedback systems within cells.
These are just examples and there may be more mechanisms unknown as yet to me.
'Do biologists yet know how the information in the genome (and elsewhere in the cell, if that is the case) is used to build an animal?'
Umm, I don't think so. I remember reading about the guys at Celera (I think..) saying they had worked out the minimum number of genes to run a cell but I don't remember the specifics I'm afraid. To put it bluntly, little steps are made every day but I don't think anyone knows the entire process yet certainly not in Humans, but in flies maybe lol. Certain genes are known to have roles in the development of embryos, HOX genes for example. Have a search of Pubmed, I have little knowledge of developmental genetics I'm afraid.
Given that we are all very predictable in the timings of our development both before and after birth it would make sense to me to think that there are no 'plans' as such just a very predictable and conserved sequence of events that may be controlled by some of the types of processes above...?
Does that help in anyway Doublee? Hopefully at least it was informative.
SNIP-ZONE
ReplyDeleteThese are all historical questions. About evolution and gravity.
Cornelius Hunter: We don't understand how life could have first evolved,
We don't know how gravity congealed from out of the chaos of the Planck epoch.
Cornelius Hunter: we don't understand how multicellular organisms could have evolved from unicellular organisms,
We don't know exactly how the first galaxies formed.
Cornelius Hunter: we don't understand how identical unconstrained DNA sequences could be conserved in distant species,
We don't know what caused the nebula to collapse to form the Solar System.
Cornelius Hunter: we don't understand how shocking differences could have evolved in otherwise similar species,
We're not sure how the Moon was formed. Well, you get the idea.
While gravitationists can provide plenty of guesses about how gravity congealed, the fact is gravitationists have no idea how it actually congealed. And if gravitationist have no idea how it congealed, can we really be sure that it did?
Doublee: I was hoping to get the answer from a defender of the theory of evolution, but I somehow doubted that one would actually come out and say that he really doesn't know how evolution works.
Though there are plenty of open questions about the history of life, the broad contours can be resolved. We start with Common Descent...
The problem with your non-compelling reasoning, Z, is that the very fact that we stay stuck to the surface of the earth convinces us that gravity is real, regardless of how it works.
ReplyDeleteThere is no such evidence for evolution.
We can also look up at the moon every day, and see it.
ReplyDeleteCan't do the same for evolution.
To quote Z, "Well, you get the idea".
Since 6 billion people see the stars and galaxies every night, we don't doubt their existence, because it's impossible that 6 billion people (and their forebears) would be under a continual, simultaneous, identical hallucination.
ReplyDeleteThe difference, vis a vis evolution, is that we do not doubt the existence of these material objects or forces because of their immediate and prima facie evidence. Evolution, however, is a historical narrative without any such immediate and sensory proof.
Unless one is willing to doubt one's very nerve endings, one cannot doubt the existence of these things, and existence is not predicated on explanation (i.e., things can exist without an explanation).
Evolution, however, is neither a material object nor a force, but is rather an explanation of things, a theory, a concept, a story. Hence it is its very existence that is questioned and it's existence is dependent on / predicated on the viability of the explanation.
Z is making a fundamental category mistake and hence both his premises and reasoning are in error.
regards,
#John
John,
ReplyDelete'the very fact that we stay stuck to the surface of the earth convinces us that gravity is real, regardless of how it works.
There is no such evidence for evolution.'
And there is no such evidence for god. I take it you refute that too on the same grounds?
Sorry.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJohn -
ReplyDelete"...the very fact that we stay stuck to the surface of the earth convinces us that gravity is real, regardless of how it works."
The fact that we stay stuck to the surface of the Earth is an observation.
Gravity is the name we give to the force which keeps us in this observed state.
The theory of gravity explains how this force works.
Observation, force, theory.
Now, to compare it with evolution...
The fact that every single mammal, from human to mouse, from bat to blue whale, has exactly the same arrangement of bones in its hand is an observation. No-one can doubt this is the case.
Evolution is the name we give to the force which we give which accounts for this observation.
The theory of evolution explains how this force works.
Observation, force, theory.
You can see the effects of evolution for yourself just as plainly as you can see the effects of gravity - just study the bones of all mammals. Ta-dah.
"...it's impossible that 6 billion people (and their forebears) would be under a continual, simultaneous, identical hallucination."
Just as an aside, no, not impossible. Just highly improbable. You should be careful about using such absolut words such as 'impossible'.
Cornellius "The Darwinian" Hunter. I just love the pic you posted.
ReplyDeleteObservation, force, theory.
ReplyDeleteFact, explanation, explanation
Fact. evolution. theory of evolution
Fact. ID. theory of ID
Evolution and ID are at the same level, they are explanation of facts, sadly there is a theory of evolution and not one for ID. May be this is the reason still there are evolutionists-
Evolution and ID both explain the facts.
ReplyDeleteI'll go along with that.
But it's also pivotal that ID would explain ANY POSSIBLE set of facts. There is not a single conceivable fact nor set of facts that could conceivably be found in nature that ID would not explain. It therefore has no explanatory value whatsoever, and fails to qualify for the title of 'theory'.
"sadly there is a theory of evolution and not one for ID."
While true, you say that as if it is a point in ID's favour. If you believe this, you are sadly mistaken. It is a point very much against ID.
Re R's comment above: "But it's also pivotal that ID would explain ANY POSSIBLE set of facts."
ReplyDeleteIt's also pivotal that evolution would explain ANY POSSIBLE set of facts. And it is in fact the case that it does, as evidenced by it's incorporation of contradictory hypotheses into the theory and the inability of any possible prediction to falsify it. Evolution is a Borg theory of biology; all is incorporated into it.
regards,
#John
John,
ReplyDeleteThat is simply not true. Lots of things could falsify the theory of evolution. The famous example is the rabbit in the PreCambrian. It demands a highly specific pattern in the fossil record, the distribution of species, the gene patterns... and we find these patterns do, in fact, exist in the real world. This is not an indication the the theory is unfalsifiable, but that it is probably true.
#John1453: We can also look up at the moon every day, and see it. Can't do the same for evolution.
ReplyDeleteOf course you can.
You can't directly observe the ancient history of evolution, nor can you observe the ancient history of the gravitational collapse of the Solar System.
#John1453: Evolution, however, is a historical narrative without any such immediate and sensory proof.
Evolution is an observed phenomena, just like gravity. Don't they teach basic biology in your country?
Blas: Evolution and ID are at the same level, they are explanation of facts, sadly there is a theory of evolution and not one for ID. May be this is the reason still there are evolutionists-
Sorry. Scientific theories have to make specific and distinguishing empirical predictions. The Theory of Evolution is the central unifying concept of biology. Intelligent Design lacks empirical support and and cannot be meaningfully tested.
#John1453: It's also pivotal that evolution would explain ANY POSSIBLE set of facts.
That is incorrect. The Theory of Evolution is highly constrained, starting with descent with modification as an explanation for the observed patterns in biology. It does conform to the known data very well. That's a strength, not a weakness, of course.
Does matter create gravity?
ReplyDeleteOr, does gravity create matter?
From a paper titled Gravity from Quantum Information
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.5445v2.pdf
"It is a point very much against ID."
ReplyDelete"The Theory of Evolution is the central unifying concept of biology"
The point is that evolution is not a fact as much as ID is not a fact. Are only explanations.
Blas -
ReplyDelete"The point is that evolution is not a fact as much as ID is not a fact. Are only explanations."
The difference is that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. This means that it has not only passed a certain standard of evidence, but also that it provides testable hypotheses and a basis for further experimentation and verification. Moreover, it has been meticulously scrutinized by the finest minds in biology for a century and a half, and has been absolutely accepted by the VAST majority of them (and the vast majority of those who refuse to accept it quite unashamedly do so for overtly religious reasons).
ID, by contrast, is not a scientific theory. It has passed no standard of evidence, makes no predictions and offers no ways of testing it, which renders it totally useless as a scientific hypothesis. It simply looks at the evidence WHATEVER THE EVIDENCE HAPPENS TO BE, and says 'God dit it'.
Imagine I claimed that the entire universe and everything in it was poofed into existence last Thursday by an invisible magic unicorn. Our memories of everything that occurred before last Thursday are lies - handed to us as the universe began.
You could never prove Last Thursdayism was wrong, and it explains absolutely every observation you could possibly make - the magic unicorn made it that way last Thursday.
Last Thursdayism, therefore explains everything. Is it a good explanation, scientifically speaking? No. We cannot test it. And without that, we can have no idea whether it is true.
ID has the explanatory power of Last Thursdayism, and no more. Do not put it on a par with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is light years ahead of ID in terms of scientific credibility and explanatory power.
"ID has the explanatory power of Last Thursdayism, and no more. Do not put it on a par with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is light years ahead of ID in terms of scientific credibility and explanatory power"
ReplyDeleteThis not make evolution a fact, it still an explanation.
Blas -
ReplyDelete"This not make evolution a fact, it still an explanation."
Yes, by far and away the BEST explanation we have of the observed evidence.
You seem to be quibbling over the word 'fact'. Why? I agree the theory of evolution is not a fact in that it is not a specific observation - a single piece of empirical data. It is a theory, which means it is an explanation of data. Again, by far and without a shadow of doubt, the BEST explanation.
What I suspect you mean by arguing about the word 'fact' is that you want to know if the theory of evolution is true. And the answer to that is, to the best of our knowledge, yes it is.
It is POSSIBLE that ID is true instead. But it is POSSIBLE that Last Thursdayism is true instead. Equally POSSIBLE that Last Wednesdayism is true. Or any other of the infinite number of made-up catch-all hypotheses you care to mention. But each is highly unlikely in the extreme.
Why on Earth anyone would chose to favour an extremely improbable, unevidenced and totally unscientific hypothesis to explain the facts when we have a perfectly servicable, extremely probable, very well-evidenced, bona fide scientific theory on hand is totally beyond me.
Ritchie:
ReplyDeleteI don't get why explainig everything means explaning nothing. Everything is not equal to nothing.
Adn just how improbable is ID? Is it 100 to 1? 50 to 1?
And the chances of changing things lie one functioning protein into another make evolution extremely improbable.
Blas: The point is that evolution is not a fact as much as ID is not a fact. Are only explanations.
ReplyDeleteEvolution is directly observed. It is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory. As such, it is a group of interrelated claims that entail testable empirical predictions. The Theory of Evolution has been verified by observations in as widely disparate fields as geology and genetics and gardening.
Blas: This not make evolution a fact, it still an explanation.
Evolution is a fact and a theory.
Evolution is directly observed. It is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory.
ReplyDeleteYou can say that.
You can shout it from the housetops.
You can quote Stephen Jay Gould until you are blue in the face.
But...
Dr Hunter and his minions will continue to confuse the distinction.
I betcha.
violet -
ReplyDelete"I don't get why explainig everything means explaning nothing. Everything is not equal to nothing."
A fair question. Allow me to explain:
When I say that ID explains 'everything', I don't mean it explains all the data we have. I mean it would explain ANY POSSIBLE data. There could not possibly be any piece of data which ID would not explain.
Why is this bad? Well, as good little scientists we want to figure out how the world works. And the scientific way of doing this is to come up with hypotheses about how the world MIGHT work, and then test these hypotheses to see if they are right.
For example, I might come up with a hypothesis that substance A is poisonous to mice. I could then test it to see if it is so. I could take two groups of mice and feed group A the substance, but not feed it to group B and compare the death rates.
If the hypothesis stands up in the face of various experiments and passes a certain standard of evidence, it is then called a theory.
The key point here is that hypotheses/theories need to be TESTABLE. We need to be able to say a certain outcome of our experiment supports our hypothesis, and a certain outcome falsifies it. If the mice in group A die at a significantly higher rate than the ones in group B then the hypothesis is supported. If not, it is falsified.
Now here's the thing - ID is not testable! It makes no predictions. You cannot test it because it would account for ANY outcome.
Imagine we found a new species of mammal. We were about to disect one to find out about its anatomy. Now, the theory of evolution dictates certain facts - because it is a mammal, it must have certain features such as the mammalian inner ear, the mammalian arrangement of bones in the hand, etc. If we open up the animal and find this is not the case then common ancestry comes crashing down. Not so with ID. There is NOTHING AT ALL we could find inside the creature that would falsify ID. We could find the creature is filled with sawdust, and ID would STILL be able to account for it. All ID does is look at the evidence and proclaim 'God did it.' That could be applied to any possible set of facts. It is not testable.
"Adn just how improbable is ID? Is it 100 to 1? 50 to 1?"
Well I don't have exact numbers, but look at it this way - ID relies on the premise that a being capable of creating the universe exists. Such a being would necessarily be greater and more complex than the universe. Therefore its existence would be more mathematically unlikely than the existence of the universe.
In other words, absolutely ANY premise that is based upon the assumption of the existence of beings greater, more complex and thus more unlikely, than the universe, HAS to be less likely than one which does not assume such a being.
"And the chances of changing things lie one functioning protein into another make evolution extremely improbable."
Can you elaborate here, please?
First of all, I do believe ID is testable. If things where desinged they should look like they were designed, and organisms do look ike they were designed. And people claim that ID has in fact been falsified, which means it is falsifiable. Adn why does a theory have to be falsifiable anyway? Who gets to make the rules?
ReplyDeleteAnd why does the Creator have to be complex? To the best of my knowledge, there is no law that says that complexity has to come from more complexity. It just has to come from somewhere.
And the Abrahamic religions consider the Creator to be a perfect unity, the ultimate in simplicity. And modern ID theory does not require that the creator be God of the Bible.
And your resaoning says that the Creator is less likely than the universe. Okay, so if the chances of the universe existing are good, let say 9 out of 10, then the chances of a creatro might be something like 8 to 10. Those are pretty good odds. Its hard to talk about probabilties without real numbers.
And lets say you want to change a certain protein into another protein. To do so, you need to change 10 amino acids. Proteins can be called closely homomologous if the amino acid arraingement is up to 20% different. This means that in a protein 100 amino acids long, you might have to change 20 amino acids to get a new protein. Even if it is only 10 amino acids, the chances of changing them by a random process is 10^20. That's a huge number.
"This means that in a protein 100 amino acids long, you might have to change 20 amino acids to get a new protein. Even if it is only 10 amino acids, the chances of changing them by a random process is 10^20. That's a huge number."
ReplyDeletePardon me? I think you are a touch confused. Are you honestly claiming that the odds of random mutation altering 10 amino acids in a sequence of 100 amino acids is 10^20?
I wonder if you could explain your rationale for this? Why does your 'calculation' not involve population size, mutation rate or number of generations?
You appear to be attempting to demonstrate the odds of an exact new AA sequence appearing de novo in a single, specific individual, something unrelated to a discussion of evolution.
Abimer:
ReplyDeleteIf the changes happen in a step wise sequence, then we hvae the problem of a protein that might not serve its original purpose, and doesn't perform the original function either.
The typical mutation rate is fro one amino acid, to the nest of my knowledge is one in a million births. To change 10 amino acids you need 1,000,000^10 births.
And according to this article:
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/180/3/1501
it would take >200,000,000 yeasr for an adaptation that involves 2 mutations to work its way through a population of animals that reproduce at the rate humans do. That's too long.
Sorry, mistake:
ReplyDeleteShould be "and doesn't serve the new function, either."
Ritchie:
ReplyDeleteI thought a little about what you said above. I understandyou to be saying that we not only want to explain why A happened, but also why B did not happen. God did it doesn't explain why B didn't happen because God could have gone with B. So evolution might be a more intellectually satisfiying answer. But people say that God did it does not explain things like vestigal structures, or suboptimal functioning.
Violet says "If the changes happen in a step wise sequence, then we hvae the problem of a protein that might not serve its original purpose, and doesn't perform the original function either."
ReplyDeleteNot so. One example, (although there are many): Observe the level of variation in the protein produced by the mitochondrial gene cytochrome b, an essential part of cellular respiration, and you will see that enormous amounts of variation are possible without making proteins useless.
Secondly, and more relevant here, new genes with different function frequently arise via duplication, not by cannibalising existing genes. So even when the problem of non-functionality you suggest does exist, it is not a problem to the organism.
"The typical mutation rate is fro one amino acid, to the nest of my knowledge is one in a million births. To change 10 amino acids you need 1,000,000^10 births."
I have no idea what you mean by this. There is no typical mutation rate. Mutation rates vary substantially through the genome (e.g. microsatellites vs genes) and between organisms. Mutations happen between single nucleotides, not directly between amino acids, although that can be the result of certain changes in coding seqs. To 'change' 10 amino acids you need population processes via genetic drift, genetic draft and/or natural selection, not simply a fixed number of births, plus your calculation is wrong as above.
And according to this article:
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/180/3/1501
it would take >200,000,000 yeasr for an adaptation that involves 2 mutations to work its way through a population of animals that reproduce at the rate humans do. That's too long."
This example is where two exact, specified mutations must occur and spread through the entire population. In other words, very specific circumstances.
Why is 200 MY too long? Too long for what, precisely? The point the authors make is that this sort of specificity is unlikely to occur across the entire human population - i.e. a limitation on a given mode of evolution. This is the sort of work done at the population genetics level all the time to show how qualitatively different processes occur in different taxa. It is not an argument against evolution at all, but demonstrates the limitations of certain taxa for certain evolutionary trajectories i.e. evolution is unlikely to proceed in a given way in a taxon - if we observed this sort of thing happening a lot we would need to reconsider our position.
Note that the odds of beneficial, but undirected mutations (i.e. classic RM+NS) occurring and fixing in a population is rather different from this.
To Violet,
ReplyDeleteIt is also worth noting that a protein doesn't have to completely change into another protein for it to have profound effects. A single base change can result in a change of one amino acid within a protein. One amino acid change may affect the protein's affinity for its substrates causing a variation in function, not a loss of function. Transcription factors are a good example where one base change can alter the affinity that the protein has for DNA and can therefore cause a change in the regulation of genes that protein was involved in. Importantly, this doesn't mean the protein loses its function just that its function may be modified. My point is that a single base change can have an amplified effect on the cell without 'messing everything up'or rendering the protein 'useless'. I would encourage you to look into single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and the effects they can have on various cellular processes. These SNPs are mutations that have been inherited and they are being linked to a variety of differences between individuals on a morphological, systemic and cellular level.
One mutation, a single base change IS NOT analogous to changing a single letter in a word. It does not automatically render the original protein defunct.
I guess I should have been more precise. Sometimes you can change some amoni acids without rendering the protein functionless. But some sequnces are critical. In the case of the
ReplyDeletecytochrome, some of the sequences are highly conserved. So there are critical sequences that you can't change. So to go from one protein in a tepwie fashion ,you have to get lucky, and jsut happemn to have functional intermediates.
sorry typos
ReplyDeleteshould be "in a stepwise fashion you have to get lucky, and just happen to have"
I don't understand how the case in the article is different than typical evolution. Humans have adaptations that involved two or more amino acid changes. Same with lots of other species. Given known mutation rates, reproduction rates, and the time it takes for an adaptation to work its way through a population, that is the number they came up with.
And getting a new gene by copying and changing an old gene is not so simple. You have to copy the control sequences as well, then you have to change them, too.
I'm leaving aside gene duplication and all other forms of genomic change and just focusing on single base mutations, ok.
ReplyDeleteDNA does not mutate in order for it to proceed in a stepwise fashion towards a distant goal. It is considered that it changes (For arguments sake, I will not use the word random here). Let us say a given protein acquires a single base change mutation. This mutant may cause a number of outcomes a) it is so deleterious to the protein and the protein so integral to survival that there won't even be a viable zygote (thus we have ultra-conserved regions in genes like the cytochromes), b) it has no effect upon the functioning of the protein at all (thus we have SNPs) c) the properties of the protein are affected without completely removing its original function thus we have a modified and functioning protein
I guess all extant proteins fall into either b or c. Note C is not an intermediate, it is novel in and of its own right.
Violet,
ReplyDeleteSorry, but I'm no good with the mathematics that they use in the paper mentioned earlier. I have my own personal misgivings about those sorts of arguments and so tend to stay out of them.
Violet -
ReplyDelete"First of all, I do believe ID is testable. If things where desinged they should look like they were designed, and organisms do look ike they were designed."
I'm afraid that won't do. For one thing 'Does nature look designed?' is a purely subjective question. What looks designed to someone might definitely not look designed to someone else.
I, for one, do not happen to think nature looks designed. To my mind, there are too many apparent 'design flaws' in nature for it to have been designed - at least designed by an intelligent, competent being (the laryngeal nerve in the giraffe, for example).
But, as I said, this is just my subjective opinion. If ID were testable then we would be able to perform experiments to discover objective facts with would support or falsify ID. But we cannot.
Think back to my example of dissecting a newly discovered species of mammal. There is absolutely nothing we could find inside the mammal that would falsify ID. WHATEVER we found inside, ID would account for it. This is not the case for the theory of evolution, or indeed, any true scientific theory.
"And people claim that ID has in fact been falsified, which means it is falsifiable."
Who claims it has been falsified?
"Adn why does a theory have to be falsifiable anyway? Who gets to make the rules?"
That is simply the scientific method. You don't have to adhere to these rules if you don't want to, but if you don't then you are not performing science.
"And why does the Creator have to be complex?"
Well, any being capable of designing something has to be more complex than the designed object. Otherwise it would not have been capable of designing it.
"And the Abrahamic religions consider the Creator to be a perfect unity, the ultimate in simplicity."
The Abrahamic God is anything but simple. He is traditionally depicted as all-knowing, all-powerful, and ever-present. That would make Him extremely complex, and thus, extremely mathematically improbable.
"And modern ID theory does not require that the creator be God of the Bible."
True. But it does require a supernatural being capable of designing terrestrial life. Such a being would still have to be more complex than its creations. It is incidental that the Abrahamic God fits the description rather well.
"And your resaoning says that the Creator is less likely than the universe. Okay, so if the chances of the universe existing are good, let say 9 out of 10, then the chances of a creatro might be something like 8 to 10. Those are pretty good odds. Its hard to talk about probabilties without real numbers."
I appreciate it is extremely difficult to do this without real numbers, but look at it this way - the existence of anything complex is mathematically unlikely. The more complex it is, the more mathematically unlikely it is to exist. The universe, in fact, is extremely mathematically unlikely. A being capable of deigning such a universe, even more so.
However, the universe has a major advantage here - we know for a fact that it does exist! We are in it. It is all around us. It really does exist. This boosts the probability of the universe existing right up to 100%. The universe's entirely hypothetical creator is still trailing far, far, far behind, weighed down by collossal odds against him/her/it. If we had good solid evidence that this creator existed, this would bump His probability up too. But we don't.
Violet -
ReplyDelete"I thought a little about what you said above. I understandyou to be saying that we not only want to explain why A happened, but also why B did not happen. God did it doesn't explain why B didn't happen because God could have gone with B. So evolution might be a more intellectually satisfiying answer. But people say that God did it does not explain things like vestigal structures, or suboptimal functioning."
Ummm... kinda. 'God did it' is an intellectually unsatisfying explanation of anything becasue it could account for anything at all. There could never possibly exist any evidence or obsrvation which could NOT be explained away with 'God did it'.
You mentioned vestigial structures. Under the theory of evolution, they make sense. We COULD also explain them by saying 'God made them'. We have no way to prove He didn't. But why would a designer make them? It seems to go against the idea of creatures being intelligently designed.
But again, we cannot prove God didn't make them. And possibilities like these are all the ID movement really has to cling to. So no, it's not really very intellectually satisfying at all.
I'm the violet, my daughter forgot to log out last time.
ReplyDeleteRitchie:
When I said organsims look designed, I meant that they resemble things like machines that I know to have been designed, and not like things like rocks that I konw weren't designed. They have interacting parts like designed things.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no law that says that complexity has to come from more complexity. It just has to come from somewhere. Simple computer algorhythms can generate complex forms. And if there is a law of nature that complexity has to come from more complexity, then that would disprove evolution at a stroke. But, even if there is such a law, it doesn't apply to the God of the Bible because He is above the laws of nature.
And people have told me that suboptimal design and vestigal structures cannot be explained by "God did it." So "God did it" does not explain everything. Things like vestigal structures are a problem for ID. But you can't have it both ways. You can't say it explains everything, then say there is something it can't explain.
It says in Deuteronomy:
ReplyDelete"Here, Oh Israel, the Eternal is our God, the Eternal is One."
The traditional view is God is a pefect unity.
Adn I made a mistake above. The article I sited is talking about using known mutation rates to calculate how long it takes for an adaptation that involves turning off one control gene with one mutation, then turning it on in a different context. Changing coding proteins might be harder.
ReplyDeleteLaugh out loud -
ReplyDelete"When I said organsims look designed, I meant that they resemble things like machines that I know to have been designed, and not like things like rocks that I konw weren't designed. They have interacting parts like designed things."
Okay, yes they do have interacting parts. And so do (some) designed objects. But that does not mean everything with interacting parts was designed.
When I said testable, I meant it literally - we must be able to make a prediction with specific objective outcomes which would either falsify or support our hypothesis in order for that hypothesis to be scientific. ID can do no such thing. 'Nature looks designed' is just a highly subjective interpretation.
"To the best of my knowledge, there is no law that says that complexity has to come from more complexity. It just has to come from somewhere."
Quite. It is the ID movement that reasons complexity has to come from a more complex source. The theory of evolution is founded on the idea that complexity can arise gradually out of simplicity.
"And if there is a law of nature that complexity has to come from more complexity, then that would disprove evolution at a stroke."
True. Again, it is the ID movement which insists complexity cannot arise on its own, unguided, from simplicity.
"But, even if there is such a law, it doesn't apply to the God of the Bible because He is above the laws of nature."
That is religous dogma. It is not an objective fact.
"And people have told me that suboptimal design and vestigal structures cannot be explained by "God did it." So "God did it" does not explain everything."
I see your reasoning. But it does fall slightly short. We CAN explain sub-optimal design and vestigial features by saying 'God made them that way.' It is AN explanation. Just not a very satisfying one.
Take the back leg bones in whales. They are vestigial features. Why do they have them? Well we COULD say 'God made whales with them'. It is an answer. Just not a very good one. It is just another way of saying 'They just do'.
Now consider the theory of evolution's explanation. Here, vestigial features not only make sense, but there is a solid reason as to why we should expect to find them compared to why we should not.
"The traditional view is God is a pefect unity."
Nothing but dogma, I'm afraid. Where are the facts? Where is the evidence? What makes the traditional view more likely to be right than a modern or radical one, or one belonging to another religion entirely?
To the best of my knowledge ID does not say that complexity has to come from more complexity. IT just has to some from somewhere. The laws of physics and chemistry plus randomness do not make an adequate somewhere.
ReplyDeleteAnd lots of the evidence for evolution that is sited in the literature is based on the arguement, that God wouldn't do it that way." I guess your saying what they really mean is that God could do it that way, but we find it distastefull.
And I do believe that the hip bones in whales aren't purely vestigal. They anchor the repoductive organs.
"To the best of my knowledge ID does not say that complexity has to come from more complexity."
ReplyDeleteThat, I think is wrong. The ID argument is very much, 'Look how complicated every living thing is - even the smallest cell. It is all so complex and intricate. It must have been designed.'
And if something is designed, then there must have been a mind capable of doing the designing - that is, a mind to plan, design and create the designed object. Which means the designer HAS to be more complex than the designed object. Otherwise it would not be capable of designing the object.
"IT just has to some from somewhere. The laws of physics and chemistry plus randomness do not make an adequate somewhere."
In your opinion. But that is just the argument from ignorance. Just because you don't know how life arose from simple chemistry, and that you think it is unlikely, does not mean it IS unlikely. That is the point of science. Scientists investigate when they come across a mystery in the hopes of unlocking its secrets. The 'God did it' response is the intellectual equivalent of giving up and declaring a miracle.
"And lots of the evidence for evolution that is sited in the literature is based on the arguement, that God wouldn't do it that way."
That is not true. It is a point which I think Cornelius Hunter tries to peddle on here a lot, though, and I often butt heads with him over it. The theory of evolution is not at all predicated on assumptions on what God, or any potential intelligent deisgner, divine or not, would or would not design.
"And I do believe that the hip bones in whales aren't purely vestigal. They anchor the repoductive organs."
Really? Never heard that before. Well, even if that is the case, just substitute it with vestigial organs of your choice...
I said lots of arguements, not all of them. The vestigal organ arguement for one you sited is an example. How do vestigal organs prove that one species changes into another? Maybe the organ lost its function after a special creation? It's just that God wouldn't do it way.
ReplyDeleteI find it humorous to note that humans feel they will eventually be able to explain anything, that things are true but we just don't know why yet. I hate to break it to you, but their will probably always be things we cannot test or measure but are true nonetheless. Our disbelieving it doesn't change that likelihood. In 1000 years people will look back at us as ignorant of the truth and in another 1000 they will look back and say the same, etc. forever.
ReplyDelete