Dear Professor Louis:
You have presented the view that from a theological perspective evolution is not objectionable. You explained, for instance, that we ought not to confuse mechanism with meaning. If the creator used evolution as a creation tool, that need not detract from the meaning of the creation. And you thoughtfully defended Leibniz’s arguments that occasional divine intervention demeans God’s craftsmanship and that God doesn’t do miracles to satisfy the wants of nature, but rather those of grace.
But have you considered what theology has to say about scientific realism? Solomon, for example, wrote that “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.” Is there not a theological mandate that science ought to adhere to the evidence and data?
I ask the question because evolution is so often at odds with the scientific evidence. For instance, science suggests that the evolution of even a single protein is highly unlikely. One study concluded that the number of evolutionary experiments required to evolve a protein is 10^70 while another study concluded that the maximum number of evolutionary experiments possible is only 10^43. So the number of evolutionary experiments required is 27 orders of magnitude greater than the number of evolutionary experiments possible.
By any reasonable measure a 27 order of magnitude shortfall is at least tantamount to “highly unlikely.” In fact, this estimate is conservative for several reasons. First, these studies were performed not by skeptics but by evolutionists.
Second, these studies were not carefully selected to magnify the problem but on the contrary, are optimistic. The conclusion that the number of evolutionary experiments required to evolve a protein is 10^70 was arrived at using only part of a protein and only part of its function was considered. Also, other pre existing proteins were used in the experiment.
And the conclusion that the number of evolutionary experiments possible is 10^43 was computed by making every assumption as optimistic as possible. The evolutionists computed a range of values, and 10^43 was the upper end of their range. It was computed assuming a four billion year time frame and assuming the preexistence of an earth full of bacteria. The time frame is two to three orders of magnitude too large (proteins must have evolved in a matter of millions, not billions, of years). And bacteria need thousands of, yes, proteins. So even to compute the number of evolutionary experiments available to evolve a protein, it was again necessary to assume the pre existence of proteins.
The evolutionists did provide a more conservative estimate of the number of evolutionary experiments possible, reducing the number from 10^43 to 10^21. This increases the evolutionary shortfall from 27 orders of magnitude to 49 orders of magnitude. But even in this more conservative estimate the evolutionists continued to use the four billion year time frame and the pre existence of bacteria (with their many thousands of pre existing proteins).
Therefore according to today’s science the evolution of even a single protein, by the evolutionist’s own reckoning, is unworkable. This is, of course, one particular example in a consistent trend. Science presents substantial problems with the theory of evolution. Is this not a matter we should search out?
CH: For instance, science suggests that the evolution of even a single protein is highly unlikely.
ReplyDeleteI'll again ask, how do you, or anyone else, extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework? Please be specific.
This naked statement represents yet another case where you imply this is somehow possible, yet you have yet to disclose how, despite being asked directly, multiple times. You've simply ignored it, while continuing to make the very same claim.
If the question is irrelevant, than you should have no problem pointing out why. But this has yet to occur.
Perhaps you hope your target audience is too ignorant to realize how this question is relevant to your claims. Or perhaps you think repeating it enough times will somehow make it true? Or maybe you you and your target audience are somehow immune because your explanatory framework is based on "true" divine revelation? Or perhaps you naively assume that we derive theories from mere empirical observations alone?
In the absence of such an explanation, this sort of claim is irrational.
Scott:
ReplyDeleteI'll again ask, how do you, or anyone else, extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework? Please be specific.
Why do you think evolution is not an explanatory framework?
CH: Why do you think evolution is not an explanatory framework?
ReplyDeleteWhy are you misrepresenting what I wrote?
I'll again ask, how do you, or anyone else, extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework? Please be specific.
Since I'm pointing out it's unclear how *anyone* could extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework, I can't imagine how you could possibly reach this conclusion.
Now that we've closed up that loophole, I'd again ask, how do you, or anyone else, extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework? Please be specific.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteOne study concluded that the number of evolutionary experiments required to evolve a protein is 10^70 ...
That's not what was concluded in the study mentioned.
Hawks:
ReplyDeleteThat's not what was concluded in the study mentioned.
From the paper:
The question remains regarding how large a population is required to reach the fitness of the wild-type phage. The relative fitness of the wild-type phage, or rather the native D2 domain, is almost equivalent to the global peak of the fitness landscape. By extrapolation, we estimated that adaptive walking requires a library size of 10^70 with 35 substitutions to reach comparable fitness.
There are no known methods by which such a large number of experiments would be spontaneously performed in a warm little pond, deep sea vent, meteor, etc.
Nor are there known methods to magically refine the search so that the astronomical number of bad moves shrinks by many, many orders of magnitude, while retaining the good moves.
The authors make a speculative appeal to homologous recombination, stating that it might suppress negative mutations. They reference a paper which provides no such support. Indeed, the paper suggests that homologous recombination is not sufficient, but that a "complete hierarchy of natural mutation events" is required, including "nonhomologous juxtapositions." The paper admits that neo-Darwinism and neutral evolution fail to explain the generation of diversity.
Furthermore the paper is from a theoretical study. The reason why the experimentalists found the problem to be so difficult, and computed such a large number of experiments would be needed (10^70), is because the fitness landscape in protein sequence space is rugged and only rarely rises up where there are functional proteins. The theoretical paper, OTH, did not assume functional proteins are so rare. So searching for their unrealistic proteins was not so difficult. So the theoretical paper does not help.
We know of no pond or other scenario where proteins magically spontaneously evolve.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteOne study concluded that the number of evolutionary experiments required to evolve a protein is 10^70 ...
Again Cornelius, that's not what was concluded in the study mentioned. That's what YOU concluded from the study. The authors of the study didn't. Be honest.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCornelius Hunter: The conclusion that the number of evolutionary experiments required to evolve a protein is 10^70 was arrived at using only part of a protein and only part of its function was considered.
ReplyDeleteNo, that was not the conclusion of the paper. The 10^70 numbers only applies to adaptive walking.
Hayashi et al: "By extrapolation, we estimated that adaptive walking requires a library size of 10^70 with 35 substitutions to reach comparable fitness."
It's easy to show that simple point mutations is not sufficient to explore most landscapes of interest. Simple walks will climb the nearest peak. If the landscape is rugged, meaning there are many local peaks, then simple walks will not usually reach the global maximum, but a typical peak. On the other hand, recombination allows it to explore areas off the local peak. As landscapes of interest often exhibit many degrees of organization, recombination can be very effective. In the case of proteins, recombination mixes and matches motifs.
An open letter to Cornelius Hunter:
ReplyDeleteWhen addressing arguments of people you disagree with, try addressing arguments that they're actually making. Ard wasn't making a scientific case for evolution, but a theological one.
Thanks.
----------------------------------------------
The question Ard was asking was essentially: "If evolution were true, what impact does that have on Christian theology?" It is similar to asking the question "If neutrinos could travel faster than the speed of light, what impact would that have on the theory of relativity? The question of whether or not neutrinos actually do travel faster than light is irrelevant to that particular question.
CH: Nor are there known methods to magically refine the search so that the astronomical number of bad moves shrinks by many, many orders of magnitude, while retaining the good moves.
ReplyDeleteHow do you determine what are good and bad moves?
You're assuming no other set of proteins could result in life since every form of life we've observed depends on the same 20 proteins. However, it could be that some other combination of proteins could play the same roles. Or it could be that some other form of life could have arose from some completely different set of proteins.
This would drastically effect any sort of statical calculations. As such, it's unclear how this sort of argument can be use to justify ruling out proteins we observe as having evolved. It's inadequate due to the problem of indiction.
In other words, you're extrapolating observations under the framework that the organisms we observe today were an intentional goal and the specific 20 proteins in use were intentionally selected as part of that goal. But this isn't evident from mere observations alone.
Furthermore, you lack an explanation as to why an abstract or omnipotent / omniscient designer would pick this particular set of proteins over some other set. "That's just what God must have wanted" is a bad explanation.
CH: We know of no pond or other scenario where proteins magically spontaneously evolve.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you keep misrepresenting evolutionary theory as "magic"? Because you extrapolate observations in a framework that a designer intended specific life forms with specific proteins?
We do not claim that proteins magically, spontaneously evolve. We explain the knowledge of how to build proteins, as found in the genome, as being created by variation and testing, which is a variant of the same process by which science creates knowledge, via conjecture and testing.
On the other hand, you have yet to provide a scenario as to how the knowledge of how to build proteins was created, if at all. Rather, all you've done is push the problem into some unexplainable mind that exists in some unexplainable realm.
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteCornelius Hunter: The conclusion that the number of evolutionary experiments required to evolve a protein is 10^70 was arrived at using only part of a protein and only part of its function was considered.
No, that was not the conclusion of the paper.
Yes, it was the conclusion.
The 10^70 numbers only applies to adaptive walking.
Well, the hypothetical 10^70 experiments which would be needed include adaptive walking and do not include recombination or other non local moves, if that is what you mean. These sorts of numbers are not new. For example, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723 concluded that 10^77 experiments are needed.
It's easy to show that simple point mutations is not sufficient to explore most landscapes of interest. Simple walks will climb the nearest peak. If the landscape is rugged, meaning there are many local peaks, then simple walks will not usually reach the global maximum, but a typical peak.
Yes, only if you very luckily get a starting point that is very close to the peak.
On the other hand, recombination allows it to explore areas off the local peak. As landscapes of interest often exhibit many degrees of organization, recombination can be very effective. In the case of proteins, recombination mixes and matches motifs.
It would be quite fortunate that in a warm little pond you not only have macro molecules forming sequences and testing out millions of variations, but then you also have complex recombination mechanisms facilitating that search when it is stymied by the rugged fitness landscape. Mechanisms which normally use proteins, btw.
Beyond such serendipity, the problem is that recombination, even if possible and rampant, doesn’t help. It just changes your starting point. So you have a starting point followed by point mutations and the search is stymied by the rugged landscape. So then you have recombination which switches you to some other trough in the landscape, in which you again are stymied by the rugged landscape.
The bottom line is this. The evolution narrative requires something like the following, at a minimum:
1. Spontaneous testing of large numbers of sequences, for no apparent reason.
2. Sophisticated search mechanisms, that just happen to take place, which facilitate the search in a rugged landscape.
3. A landscape which, fortuitously and in spite of every evidence, is somehow shaped such that random starting locations will typically find their way to functioning proteins. For example, the functional proteins could have much wider peaks (more like mesas) than what the evidence indicates. Or the entire fitness landscape, in spite of the evidence, could be sloping toward the functional protein peaks.
This is simply mythology in the guise of science.
Cornelius Hunter: Well, the hypothetical 10^70 experiments which would be needed include adaptive walking and do not include recombination or other non local moves, if that is what you mean.
ReplyDeleteThey're local in that they are single moves through the landscape. What confuses people is they like to think of the landscape in terms of two-dimensions, when any interesting landscape exhibits organization across many degrees.
Cornelius Hunter: It would be quite fortunate that in a warm little pond you not only have macro molecules forming sequences and testing out millions of variations, but then you also have complex recombination mechanisms facilitating that search when it is stymied by the rugged fitness landscape. Mechanisms which normally use proteins, btw.
Irrelevant to the point, but recombination would be rampant in the less organized and less specific primordial environment.
Cornelius Hunter: Beyond such serendipity, the problem is that recombination, even if possible and rampant, doesn’t help. It just changes your starting point. So you have a starting point followed by point mutations and the search is stymied by the rugged landscape. So then you have recombination which switches you to some other trough in the landscape, in which you again are stymied by the rugged landscape.
That assumes that recombination leads to a new random starting point. It doesn't.
Your statement is very broad, so it should apply to any evolutionary algorithm working in a rugged landscape. Consider word evolution. Words multiply and mutate. If the mutation renders a sequence of letters not found in the dictionary, it dies without issue. But if the mutation renders a valid word, then it enters the population of words.
Are you saying that such an evolving population with point-mutation alone will behave similarly to an evolving population that has mutation and recombination?
a
am
lam
lame
game
gamer
gamers
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteanother point you're missing is that the 10^70 figure is only needed to get a protein with the same functionality as the modern version. Other, less highly functional (but still better than nothing) versions are formed much easier. so it's misleading (if not an outright lie) to say you need 10^70 to get "a protein."
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteThat assumes that recombination leads to a new random starting point. It doesn't.
Yes, it is random with respect to what counts, that is, a functional protein peak. A random non local jump is astronomically unlikely to move closer to the peak. That’s the curse of dimensionality. A search in a high-dimensional space is unlikely to move anywhere close to the right direction. What you would need is for the adaptive walk within the trough to produce changes that are in the right direction, and then have those changes preserved in the non local jump. Great work if you can get it, but there’s no evidence for such luck. Experiments have shown no significant such move in the right direction within the trough. So as I said above, what the evolution narrative needs is a “just-so” story in which the fitness landscape fortuitously shaped in a very special way.
Your statement is very broad, so it should apply to any evolutionary algorithm working in a rugged landscape. Consider word evolution. Words multiply and mutate. If the mutation renders a sequence of letters not found in the dictionary, it dies without issue. But if the mutation renders a valid word, then it enters the population of words.
But proteins are much longer than words.
Are you saying that such an evolving population with point-mutation alone will behave similarly to an evolving population that has mutation and recombination?
The former is stuck in a single trough whereas the latter gets stuck in several troughs. Both must deal with the fact that protein peaks are thin and so astronomically rare in sequence space. This is simply what science is telling us now—it is our current level of knowledge. Perhaps this will change in the future, but two very different types of studies, those beginning from scratch, and those beginning at the native protein, both indicate the same conclusion.
nano:
ReplyDeleteanother point you're missing is that the 10^70 figure is only needed to get a protein with the same functionality as the modern version. Other, less highly functional (but still better than nothing) versions are formed much easier. so it's misleading (if not an outright lie) to say you need 10^70 to get "a protein."
No, science is not indicating a sloping landscape with intermediates leading to native sequences. We've covered this many times here. The evidence comes from different types of studies, both from native and from scratch. This is complicated and we certaintly don't have all the answers. Maybe new findings will show differently, but this is what the science says today. It is what it is, we can fight the science or accept it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCH: This is simply what science is telling us now—it is our current level of knowledge.
ReplyDeleteCH: No, science is not indicating a sloping landscape with intermediates leading to native sequences.
Again, exactly how can science "tell us" or "indicate" anything about observations without first putting them in to an explanatory framework? Please be specific.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteTry to stay focused. You wrote:
"No, science is not indicating a sloping landscape with intermediates leading to native sequences. We've covered this many times here. The evidence comes from different types of studies, both from native and from scratch. This is complicated and we certaintly don't have all the answers..."
I was referring to the specific paper you base your 10^70 figure on, which showed that it was easy to get moderate levels of function from non-functional precursors. from the abstract:
"Based on the landscapes of these two different surfaces, it appears possible for adaptive walks with only random substitutions to climb with relative ease up to the middle region of the fitness landscape from any primordial or random sequence, whereas an enormous range of sequence diversity is required to climb further up the rugged surface above the middle region"
so, according to the paper you cite, it explicitly does not take 10^70 trials to get "a protein", making your statement that it does false.
Cornelius Hunter: Yes, it is random with respect to what counts, that is, a functional protein peak.
ReplyDeleteWell, no it's not. The motifs that work in one domain may work in other domains.
Cornelius Hunter: But proteins are much longer than words.
Your claim was that evolutionary algorithms will perform no better with recombination than without.
Cornelius Hunter: This is simply what science is telling us now—it is our current level of knowledge.
Your claim concerned rugged landscapes in general. Your claim was that evolutionary algorithms on rugged landscapes will not perform significantly better with recombination than without. You base this on your belief that recombination is like 'hyperspace' and picks a random location in the fitness landscape. We suggested word evolution as a simple example. Do you stand by your claim?
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteCornelius Hunter: Yes, it is random with respect to what counts, that is, a functional protein peak.
Well, no it's not. The motifs that work in one domain may work in other domains.
I was referring to the case where you start from scratch. In that case there are no "motifs that work."
CH,
ReplyDeleteI had a read of some of Ard's writings at Biologos. I have never visited the site before. I read his criticism of Behe. I was not impressed. His rational does not fit the facts as well as Behe. No amount of 'deep time' can mitigate against the astronomical number of random chance collisions that would be necessary to create the flagellem, let alone all the apparatus necessary for it to exist.
So once again ID creationism comes out on top as the best scientific explanation.
.
Scott said:
ReplyDelete"You're assuming no other set of proteins could result in life since every form of life we've observed depends on the same 20 proteins. However, it could be that some other combination of proteins could play the same roles. Or it could be that some other form of life could have arose from some completely different set of proteins. "
Yea, and there might be a Flying Spaghetti Monster out there somewhere too.
Scott, since that is all we know and can observe, that is the most scientific assumption to make don't you think?
Are you going to claim that assuming something different simply to come up with more believable numbers is the most scientific assumption in this case? But that would be faith wouldn't it since there is absolutely NO evidence for what you are claiming. Might as well believe in a Creator!
Scott said:
ReplyDelete"Again, exactly how can science "tell us" or "indicate" anything about observations without first putting them in to an explanatory framework?"
This is a good point, Scott! Science doesn't "tell" us much of what we believe. It can't even tell us that evolution took place. The idea that evolution from the first life to man by random processes actually happened is simply an interpretation that is forced on the fossil record and other observations that scientists make. The explanatory framework used to make these conclusions is that of naturalism or materialism.
Scott: “As such, it's unclear how this sort of argument(probability argument) can be use to justify ruling out proteins we observe as having evolved.”
ReplyDeleteSo, based on what we know, even though the odds against evolution are overwhelming, you think we should just ignore this problem. Why? Because, although there is no evidence whatsoever to back the idea up, you hope there just might be another set of proteins that might make life possible and therefore lower the astronomical odds to something more acceptable? See – you believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsters too!
Nonsense! I say we should stick with what we know and have evidence for as opposed to what might be. And what we know is that the odds are astronomically in favor of Intelligent Design!
Scott said: “Furthermore, you lack an explanation as to why an abstract or omnipotent / omniscient designer would pick this particular set of proteins over some other set. "That's just what God must have wanted" is a bad explanation.”
ReplyDeleteScott, why would you ever think that we finite humans could even begin to explain why the infinite and omniscient God designed things the way He did?! I mean, come on, we don’t even understand how life works, how the cell works, what is and what is not junk in the genome, etc etc etc.
I don’t understand why you think this is a problem. It is a bit arrogant to assume that we humans could ever do such a thing and to reject an Intelligent Designer simply because we cannot explain why things are designed the way they are, is extremely foolish.
The only thing that we could possibly say in response to that is “He did it this way because it works extremely well!” Sorry, but I’m not at all bothered by the fact that we lack such an explanation. It would be strange if we could answer that. The only way we could answer that is if God told us. He told us many things in His Word, but why He used this particular set of proteins over another set was not one of them. It’s irrelevant.
Scott said:
ReplyDelete“On the other hand, you have yet to provide a scenario as to how the knowledge of how to build proteins was created, if at all. Rather, all you've done is push the problem into some unexplainable mind that exists in some unexplainable realm.”
The knowledge of how to build proteins always existed in the Mind of the Designer, the uncaused First Cause. It was not created. A computer programmer studies computer programming to gain knowledge and then he uses that knowledge to write programs. However, God had no need of learning since He is omniscient. Looking at the marvels of his creation, his knowledge is obviously far beyond even all the cumulative knowledge of mankind over the centuries!
By the way, how do YOU propose that the software in the cell came about? You are going to endorse Chance as the Programmer? Who wrote the codes and the decoding software in the cell? What wrote the codes .... is not an appropriate question. It HAD to be a "who".
We all know that programs don't write themselves. A Mind is a prerequisite, a given, if we find a code, information, software, etc. You cannot even begin to explain how all this came into existence without a Designer. You are working very hard to avoid the obvious, but in the end, it is a matter of faith for you too.
In fact, your position requires even more faith than my position. Why? Because you do not have an adequate cause to account for what we see. An Intelligent Designer IS an adequate Cause and hence is much more rational and believable.
Cornelius Hunter: I was referring to the case where you start from scratch. In that case there are no "motifs that work."
ReplyDeleteBut you aren't starting from scratch. You have climbed local peaks providing some minimum function. If, for instance, alternating hydrophobic and polar residues are more likely to result in functional proteins, then the process of optimizing along the slope of a local fitness peak will, on average, predispose the sequence to this pattern. Then, when sequences recombine, the resulting recombination will not be randomly positioned on the fitness landscape, but will be likely to exhibit the alternating pattern.
tjguy: "Scott, since that is all we know and can observe, that is the most scientific assumption to make don't you think?
ReplyDeleteWouldn't that depend on how one justifies conclusions?
You seem to be unaware of various forms of epistemology and their application in science. Apparently you didn't get the memo that science is no longer based on natural theology.
tjguy: Are you going to claim that assuming something different simply to come up with more believable numbers is the most scientific assumption in this case?
No, I'm not. The numbers game isn't worth playing in the first place. Without a solution to the problem of induction, it's inadequate for justifying conclusions. As such, statistical calculations based on inductive assumptions are not adequate either.
For example, we've given examples of how the framework one uses to extrapolate observations significantly changes the "statistical likelihood" of a protein evolving. We do not assume that proteins evolved directly into modern day proteins. Nor do we assume that these particular proteins were pre-selected. Yet this is the every assumptions that Cornelius is making.
He's smuggling in teleological assumptions under the guise of being "neutral." Of course, most of his target audience shares these assumptions, so he conveniently doesn't have to disclose them explicitly or subject them to criticism.
tiguy: But that would be faith wouldn't it since there is absolutely NO evidence for what you are claiming. Might as well believe in a Creator!
Like most creationists here, you seem to have it backwards.
Theories are tested by observations, not derived from them. This means we use observations to look for errors in the theory's underlying explanation, rather than to assuming it's impossible because we have or have not experienced it before in a particular range of experiments. Scientific predictions are not prophecy.
This is why do not look for evidence that positively supports a particular theory. Rather we look for evidence that shows errors in the underlying explanation a theory provides. And we know this is the case because we do this every day in science.
For example, it's unlikely that anyone has performed research to determine if eating a square meter of grass each day for a week would cure the common cold. Why is this? Is it because it's logically impossible? No. Is it because it's unfalsifiable? No, this would be trivial to test. Is it because it's a non-natural? No.
Why then is it unlikely to be the subject of research? Because we lack an explanation as to how and why eating a square meter of grass each day for a week would cure the common cold. As such, we discard it, a priori, before we even test it.
Where is the *evidence* that we used to discard this mere possibility? Is this faith?
Without an explanation it's a theory-less possibility, which we cannot test for errors using observations. As such we discard it.
And we do this for a near infinite number of mere possibilities every day across every field of science.
Tiguy: Scott, why would you ever think that we finite humans could even begin to explain why the infinite and omniscient God designed things the way He did?!
ReplyDeleteYou're essentially claiming the biosphere was created in a way that makes a theory of biological complexity impossible. This is like claiming that atoms were created in a way that makes atomic theory impossible or that gravity was created in a way that makes gravitational theory impossible. Why is the biosphere isn't any different? Because you think it's been divine revealed in your holy book?
tiguy: The only thing that we could possibly say in response to that is “He did it this way because it works extremely well!”
Except when it doesn't. "Extremely well" as compared to what? One doesn't have to be a omnipotent and omniscient being to identify areas were even simple changes would work far better. Again, all you can say is "that's just what God must have wanted" or "there must be some mysterious reason why doing it that way is better"
tiguy: He told us many things in His Word, but why He used this particular set of proteins over another set was not one of them. It’s irrelevant.
Again, you've essentially claimed that the biosphere was created in a way that makes a theory of biological complexity impossible. And, apparently, you assume this is the case because it was divinely revealed in your preferred holy book.
tiguy: The knowledge of how to build proteins always existed in the Mind of the Designer, the uncaused First Cause. It was not created.
ReplyDeleteWhich does't actually explain the concrete difference between species.
A designer that was "just there", complete with the knowledge already present to build each species, serves no explanatory purpose, as one could just as simply state that all organisms "just happened", complete with the knowledge of how to build each species , already present in it's DNA.
You've merely pushed the problem into some unexplainable mind that exists in some unexplainable realm.
This is like claiming to have explained the outcome of a magic trick by saying, that's just what the magician must have wanted. Unless you explain the origin of the knowledge of how to perform the trick, you might as well have said this knowledge spontaneously appeared in the magician's mind or claim that it really magic, which cannot be explained.
tiguy: By the way, how do YOU propose that the software in the cell came about? You are going to endorse Chance as the Programmer? Who wrote the codes and the decoding software in the cell? What wrote the codes .... is not an appropriate question. It HAD to be a "who".
Evolution falls under a greater umbrella which explains knowledge creation in general. In science, we use conjecture to create theories, test them via observations and discard those with errors. Evolution creates what amounts to "theories" of how to replicate individual genes in a specific environment via genetic variation and tests those "theories" by discarding those with errors via natural selection.
Of course this analogy is imperfect, otherwise it wouldn't' be an analogy, would it? The key difference is that people can create explanations. Evolution cannot. People can discard a near infinite number of mere possibilities that lack explanations, a priori. However, since it lacks the concept of an explanation, evolution must test every variation.
Regardless of these differences, both processes still fall under the same explanation of knowledge creation. Neither is "magic."
Scott,
ReplyDelete"Like most creationists here, you seem to have it backwards. Theories are tested by observations, not derived from them."
I'm afraid, Scott that it is you who have it backwards. Theories are most definitely derived from observations. Tell me, exactly how would you formulate a theory about something you have not in fact, observed?
It appears obvious you simply do not even understand the basic pattern of scientific enquiry. It was observations within nature which lead to the theory of evolution. The theory did not lead to the observations.
scott: However, since it lacks the concept of an explanation, evolution must test every variation.
ReplyDeleteIt's impossible to test every variation. Rather, evolution can't discard variations before it tests them.
Scott: Again, exactly how can science "tell us" or "indicate" anything about observations without first putting them in to an explanatory framework?
ReplyDeletetiguy: This is a good point, Scott! Science doesn't "tell" us much of what we believe. It can't even tell us that evolution took place. The idea that evolution from the first life to man by random processes actually happened is simply an interpretation that is forced on the fossil record and other observations that scientists make.
Exactly how did you reach this conclusion from what I wrote?
What I asked what how it was possible for anyone to extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework. What's the alternative?
How do you respond? You imply that evolutionary theory is "forcing" itself on observations, which doesn't address the question. Apparently my point when completely over your head.
Specifically, for evolution to be "forcing" itself on the observations, then there must be a way to extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework. Why don't you enlighten us as to how this is even possible. Please be specific.
Scott: However, since it lacks the concept of an explanation, evolution must test every variation.
ReplyDeleteLast year: It's impossible to test every variation. Rather, evolution can't discard variations before it tests them.
Within a finite amount of time a finite amount of variations will be generated. Natural section cannot discard any of these variations, a priori, by filtering out explanation-less variations since, among other things, evolutionary process cannot create explanations.
Specifically, we can say that one of the defining traits of people is that they have the ability to create explanations. It's this trait that allows us to extrapolate observations.
Of course, I'd welcome other explanation as to how anyone could extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework, but there doesn't seem to be any takers.
Nic: I'm afraid, Scott that it is you who have it backwards. Theories are most definitely derived from observations. Tell me, exactly how would you formulate a theory about something you have not in fact, observed?
ReplyDeleteScientific theories explain the seen in terms of the unseen. And the unseen doesn't come to us though the senses. Right? We do not see nuclear reactions in stars. Nor do we see the curvature of space-time.
So, while new observations may lead us to find existing explanations inadequate or to even create entirely new explanations, this doesn't mean that these explanations are *derived* from observations.
That would imply that it's possible to extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework. But, so far, no one has explained how this is possible.
Editing for clarity...
ReplyDeleteSo, while new observations may compel us to conclude existing explanations are inadequate and in need of improvement, or even compel us to conjecture entirely new explanations, this doesn't mean that these explanations are *derived* from observations.
Scott,
ReplyDelete"So, while new observations may compel us to conclude existing explanations are inadequate and in need of improvement, or even compel us to conjecture entirely new explanations, this doesn't mean these explanations are 'derived' from observations."
Thank you for demonstrating my point that you fail to understand the basic process of enquiry. Such explanations as you describe are simply hypothetical and do not approach the status of theory as they are in fact unobserved.
You're simply trying to play a semantic game here. If it is 'observed' that existing explanations are inadequate and new explanations are needed, are not these new attempts at explaining the phenomenon the result of what we observed?
So, it is as I stated before, theories derive from what is observed and our attempts to explain those observations.
Nic: Thank you for demonstrating my point that you fail to understand the basic process of enquiry. Such explanations as you describe are simply hypothetical and do not approach the status of theory as they are in fact unobserved.
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting explanation for starlight - nuclear reactions - is merely hypothetical? Really? If so, thank you for clearly demonstrating that you're a naive empiricist.
All observations are theory laden. From the Galilean Library's entry on Theory-ladenness…
To return to examples, then, even a straightforward statement such as "this lump of coal weighs one kilogram" is riddled with theory. Whether we include inference from prior experience (i.e. that the heaviness from lifting pieces of coal is conserved over time); the apparatus required to derive weights; the physical theories upon which the instruments and concepts like weight and mass are based; other theories that determine the effect (if any) on weight at different locations; and so on; we are very far indeed from a "basic" proposition.
All of these theories make up the explanatory framework by which the observation (the weight of the lump of coal) is extrapolated. They all represent unseen frameworks which explain the seen.
That the Bible consist of pages with text is an extrapolation that depend on the theory of photons, optics, biology, neurology and a host of other theories that cannot be proven to be "True" merely by any number of observations. Rather they represent conjectured theories that have yet to be shown to contain errors when tested by observations.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNic: You're simply trying to play a semantic game here. If it is 'observed' that existing explanations are inadequate and new explanations are needed, are not these new attempts at explaining the phenomenon the result of what we observed?
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm playing semantic word games.
Take Newton's laws of motion, for example. They were widely accepted for centuries. However, observations were made which Newton's laws did not explain, such as the orbit of Mercury, the observed angular deflection of light rays by gravity and the requirement that it would need to be transmitted instantaneously.
While these observations led to better questions, answers to these questions were not derived from them. We do not directly observe electrons any more than we observe the curvature of space-time. That electrons exist represents the extrapolation of observations in an explanatory framework. These frameworks were created by conjecture and tested for errors by observations.. In fact, in science, we assume that all theories contain errors and omissions. The question is what part of the theory and to what degree.
However, it's logically possible that demons cloud our mind or tamper with equipment in just the right way that makes us think electrons exist. We cannot prove this is false by any number of experiments. However, we have no explanation as to why demons would collaborate to act in just this particular way, so we discard it.
While Einstein's theory of general relatively does explain the above issues that Newton's theory did not, it resulted in better questions. For example, GR does not explain observations where both classic and quantum scales interacts. We have no working theory of quantum gravity. However, if we derive new theories from these same observations, then shouldn't we already have a new theory that explains it already?
Observations that supported Newton's laws of motion have been falling on every square meter of the earth for billions of years. This includes the roughly 100,000 years that hominids have existed. Yet Newton only created his theory roughly 300 years ago. That's 60,000 years after humans with essentially the same brain structures as you and I appeared. Again, if we derive theories from observations, then what took us so long?
Observations are not scarce. We have plenty of observations. Rather what is scarce is good explanations (explanatory frameworks) for these observations. This is because we form them via conjecture, rather than deriving them from observations.
Nic: So, it is as I stated before, theories derive from what is observed and our attempts to explain those observations.
Then you should have no problem showing us how it's even possible to extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework. Walk us though it.
Let me guess, who needs an explanatory frameworks when you have a voice in a whirlwind?
Nic said:
ReplyDelete"Thank you for demonstrating my point that you fail to understand the basic process of enquiry. Such explanations as you describe are simply hypothetical and do not approach the status of theory as they are in fact unobserved."
And:
"So, it is as I stated before, theories derive from what is observed and our attempts to explain those observations."
So then, your imaginary god, any other so-called god, jesus, all of the stories and characters in the bible and other religious claims, and ID are all simply hypothetical, and do not approach the status of theory as they are in fact unobserved, right?
tjguy said: "Yea, and there might be a Flying Spaghetti Monster out there somewhere too."
ReplyDeleteCan you prove that there isn't, or that a flying spaghetti monster is any less likely than your chosen god?
tjguy: "So, based on what we know, even though the odds against evolution are overwhelming, you think we should just ignore this problem. Why? Because, although there is no evidence whatsoever to back the idea up, you hope there just might be another set of proteins that might make life possible and therefore lower the astronomical odds to something more acceptable? See – you believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsters too!"
What do you "know and have evidence for" in regard to your chosen god and ID? How exactly did you calculate the allegedly overwhelming odds against evolution?
tjguy: "Nonsense! I say we should stick with what we know and have evidence for as opposed to what might be. And what we know is that the odds are astronomically in favor of Intelligent Design!"
What do "we know and have evidence for" in regard to your chosen god and ID, and who's "we"? How exactly did you calculate the "odds" that you allege "are astronomically in favor of Intelligent Design"?
tjguy: "Scott, why would you ever think that we finite humans could even begin to explain why the infinite and omniscient God designed things the way He did?! I mean, come on, we don’t even understand how life works, how the cell works, what is and what is not junk in the genome, etc etc etc."
What "infinite and omniscient God"? Do you have any evidence that verifies its existence and that it is the one and only god? Can you provide any scientifically calculated "odds" that are in favor of its existence? Are the odds any better than for the existence of any other god, including the flying spaghetti monster? How exactly do you know that "God designed things"?
You say that "we don’t even understand how life works, how the cell works, what is and what is not junk in the genome, etc etc etc" yet you also claim to "know" that your god "designed things" even though you have no evidence to support it and can't explain how "He" allegedly did it. And who's "we"?
tjguy: "The only way we could answer that is if God told us. He told us many things in His Word,...."
What "word"? What "God"? Can you provide evidence for any of your claims? How do you know that "God" is a "He"? How do you know that "He" exists? How do you know that "He told us many things in His Word", and how do you know that it is "His word"? And who's "we"?
See part two.
Part two.
ReplyDeletetjguy: "The knowledge of how to build proteins always existed in the Mind of the Designer, the uncaused First Cause. It was not created. A computer programmer studies computer programming to gain knowledge and then he uses that knowledge to write programs. However, God had no need of learning since He is omniscient. Looking at the marvels of his creation, his knowledge is obviously far beyond even all the cumulative knowledge of mankind over the centuries!"
Can you provide any evidence that verifies "The knowledge of how to build proteins always existed in the Mind of the Designer, the uncaused First Cause." and that "It was not created."? Do you have any evidence that verifies that the alleged "Designer" is your chosen god, that the alleged "Designer" has a "Mind", that the alleged "Designer" ("God") actually exists, that the alleged "Designer" is "uncaused" and the "First Cause", that "God had no need of learning since He is omniscient", that anything and/or everything is "his creation", and that "his knowledge is obviously far beyond even all the cumulative knowledge of mankind over the centuries"?
tjguy: "By the way, how do YOU propose that the software in the cell came about? You are going to endorse Chance as the Programmer? Who wrote the codes and the decoding software in the cell? What wrote the codes .... is not an appropriate question. It HAD to be a "who"."
What "software in the cell"? Who said that chance is a "Programmer"? What "codes" and "decoding software in the cell"? Why did "It" have to be a "who"? Who is the alleged "who", how do you know it's a "who", why can't it be a "what", as in a natural process (evolution), and how do you know that the alleged "who" is your chosen god and not the FSM, Zeus, Vishnu, Amun, Odin, aliens from another dimension or universe, or something else?
See this:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_big_list_of_gods_but_nowhere_near_all_of_them
The Whole Truth,
ReplyDeleteRationalism ends in disaster. It ends in the silliness of spaghetti monster scorn. Scorners can't find truth because they are open only to justify and rationalize what they want. God will reveal Himself to those that are humble and open to ultimate Truth even if it conflicts with their lifestyle.
Neal, do you have a photograph of your god? I just figure that if he reveals himself to some people, like you, you might have taken a picture of him. If you didn't think to get a photo, maybe you could at least describe what he looks like?
ReplyDeleteIsn't it interesting to note that the frequency of miracles seems to be inversely proportional to the technological capability of recording them? For some reason, the Virgin Mary seems to dislike appearing repeatedly to persons in possession of a digital camera. Following Neal's humble suggestion, perhaps possession of a digital camera makes a person not humble enough in the eyes of The Lord and His minions.
ReplyDeleteNo Truth:
ReplyDelete"Neal, do you have a photograph of your god?"
=====
Do you have a photograph of Gravity ???
Do you have a photograph of Wind ???
Eocene said, "Do you have a photograph of Gravity ???
ReplyDeleteDo you have a photograph of Wind ??? "
--
You're right. To expect photographs is an especially silly notion given all of the things in our universe that we know we can't photograph. Not everything can be photographed but we can detect its effects. So it is with the Spirit of God, we can't photograph God, but we can see His effects in the lives of those who humble themselves and truly seek Him with an honest heart.
Neal: Rationalism ends in disaster.
ReplyDeleteIt's not even clear you know what rationalism is, let alone that it ends in disaster.
Apparently, when rationalism ends up discarding mere possibilities that you find "bizarre", such as eating a square meter of grass every day for a week as a cure for the common cold - even before any testing occurs - you're perfectly with rationalism.
However, when rationalism ends up discarding what you consider to be True divine revelation, suddenly rationalism ends in disaster. Apparently this is because you believe this same divine revelation reveals that not believing said revelation ends in disaster. For example…
Neal: It ends in the silliness of spaghetti monster scorn
- Divine revelation supposedly reveals that only fools do not believe that God exists. Therefore anything that shows the arbitrariness of a believing in any particular God leads to disaster.
Neal: Scorners can't find truth because they are open only to justify and rationalize what they want.
- Divine revelation supposedly reveals that not believing in God will lead in eternal suffering. Therefore anything that prevents us from finding God ends in disaster.
In other words, given your supposed criteria, your subjective objections are irrational. They simply do not add up. Rather, every one of your objections indicate you "solve" the problem of induction via placing divine revelation above the traditional hierarchy of deduction, induction and philosophy.
However, it's not even clear that you're even cognizant as to your own actual criteria is or what the terms you're using actually mean, in practice.
Scott: "Rather, every one of your objections indicate you "solve" the problem of induction via placing divine revelation above the traditional hierarchy of deduction, induction and philosophy."
ReplyDeleteI think you lost him at 'hierarchy'.
Eocene: "Do you have a photograph of Gravity ??? Do you have a photograph of Wind ???
ReplyDeleteNeal Tedford: "You're right. To expect photographs is an especially silly notion given all of the things in our universe that we know we can't photograph.
As it were, light does not pass through air or gravity waves unscathed. We can take photographs of both atmospheric distortion, (heat waves, mirages, etc) and gravitational distortion. (light bending around stars, etc.) "But that's not taking a picture of air or gravity," you might object, but that would be similar to pointing out that you can't take a picture of a person, merely the light bouncing off of them.
"Not everything can be photographed but we can detect its effects".
True, and to say that we can detect something is to say we can measure it in some way. With the aforementioned wind and gravity, we can even represent those measurements as images: http://bit.ly/vZFG0L http://bit.ly/tSsifH Many things that cannot be seen with the naked eye can be measured in very precise and repeatable ways: radiation, sound, micro-oganisms, and subatomic particles, to name a few. Again, to say that we can detect something is to say that we can measure it.
"So it is with the Spirit of God, we can't photograph God, but we can see His effects in the lives of those who humble themselves and truly seek Him with an honest heart."
Nope. Name one way you can measure an 'effect' of God. What metric do we even use? Feel-good-i-ness? Forgiven-from-sin-ness? Decibels? Radons? How about efficacy of intercessory prayer? Oh, wait, checked that already. Nothing. Okay then, how about per capita car accident survival rates of those humble christians vs. atheists? Oh, wait. They're the same. I hope to goodness you don't mean something like "we can see goodness in those who seek him," or "we can see compassion in those who seek him." Because the world is chock full of people who are good and compassionate, and they don't need the assistance of your imaginary friend to be that way. Name any positive trait that you have and I'll name a dozen unbelievers who have it to a greater degree. Since you compared this 'effect' to easily quantifiable phenomena like wind and gravity, I assume you mean that we see higher (or lower) x units of x traits in Christians that we find in lower (or higher) quantities in non-Christians. (perhaps it's 'not-doomed-to-hell-ishness'.) Again, you compared this to gravity. Have you ever heard anyone say that measuring gravitational pull was subjective, or that gravity only pulls objects together when you're not looking because it doesn't like to be tested? We'll keep this question separate from the others, but still keep track of how long it takes you to even attempt to answer it:
[1]
Neal, you say we can detect the effects of God in the lives of those who seek him. What are those effects? What is the unit of measurement?
Whole truth said:
Can you prove that there isn't, or that a flying spaghetti monster is any less likely than your chosen god? "
Nope. Can't prove it. Can only give evidence that makes that conclusion logical. The Bible tells us that God's existence is clear and plain to all just by looking at the created world. And therefore, we are all without excuse. Logic tells us the universe had to have a cause. We know it had to have a beginning. That Cause had to be greater than the effect. At some point you have to come to the unavoidable conclusion that there had to be an Uncaused First Cause and that would be the Creator of the Bible.
But it is obvious from the above discussion that evolutionists too are open to "flying spaghetti monsters". You are willing to believe in anything in spite of the fact that it goes against all common sense and common knowledge and human experience and then you claim it is science.
Why are you asking me to prove God scientifically? Science cannot prove or disprove anything supernatural. You should know that. Science is not the only begetter of truth, if it is one at all. Theories keep changing. Paradigms keep getting upset. I hardly think science is a trustworthy begetter of truth. God's Word is truth and that is evidence(not proof) for His existence in my book.
"How exactly did you calculate the allegedly overwhelming odds against evolution?"
Every explanation I have heard of proteins makes it quite obvious for any who are not brainwashed by materialism that these things could not have originated on their own. But you are more than welcome to spend your life trying to figure out how this figment of your imagination took place. At some point, you have to be willing to admit that the odds are too great for chance to have accomplished it. But I know the alternative of recognizing a God to whom you are responsible is a bit too repugnant for many people. They would rather believe in materialism and live in a world with no right/wrong, no free will, etc. In the atheist worldview, all is determined - even your thoughts that make you a materialist - so why should I be persuaded by your argument? Why are the chemical processes in your brain that make you a materialist any more dependable or accurate than the thoughts in my brain that make me believe in God? In the atheist world, there is no "ought" only what is.
"What "software in the cell"? Who said