Turning the Warfare Thesis on its Head
I hope readers have taken in the Nelson-Velasco debate from last month which can be seen here. It is a couple of hours with extremely knowledgeable and well-spoken philosophers advocating opposing views. But as in the greater, on-going origins debate, the crucial points are often unspoken and between the lines. While Nelson and Velasco talked biology, there was a completely different debate taking place.Velasco led off with an extended barrage of powerful and compelling evidences for evolution. As usual the focus was on patterns of similarities between species that seem to refute design and teleology. To be sure there were weak points in Valasco’s arguments (yes humans have novel genes, no common ancestry does not have a monopoly on chromosomal fusion, biological designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy, the pentadactyl prediction has long since broken down, fossils do not fall into clean, unambiguous, gradual lineages, and so forth). Velasco was at least a little guilty of confirmation bias. Furthermore Velasco continually appeared to affirm the consequent. How could successful predictions, which actually were not so successful, lead to such certainty that evolution is true? Of course, as usual, the answer is that Velasco was not proving evolution but rather disproving the alternative.
From a positivistic perspective Velasco has only a series of predictions (or retrodictions) which offer little hope that the astonishing biological world arose spontaneously via blind, chance events. In fact the problems with most of these predictions lie far outside any sort of evolutionary noise that might be used to explain them. But if design and teleology are unquestionably ruled out, then so what? One way or another evolution must be true. As Velasco repeatedly warned, nothing else can explain these evidences.
Velasco’s arguments came as no surprise. It was all standard evolutionary thinking, though exceptionally well presented. What the audience may not have realized is that, in spite of all the technical language, this reasoning is not scientific. For when evolutionists destroy teleology, they rely on theological and philosophical premises not open to scientific scrutiny. And as we have pointed out many times, the argument that “nothing else can explain these evidences,” or as Theodosius Dobzhansky put it, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,” is not from science.
All of this was highlighted in a way that probably was not obvious to most listeners. Nelson followed Velasco with an extremely effective and powerful presentation in which one of his basic points was the reminder that evolution requires change—lots of change. While Velasco’s powerful evidences emphasized similarities, evolution must cross oceans of biological transformations.
This is hardly controversial, but in his rebuttal Velasco had to pushback. He flatly disagreed with Nelson on this basic point, and sought to refocus attention back on those nonsensical similarities that win the day for evolution. Velasco could not allow the spotlight to be shifted from the problems with teleology to the problems with evolution.
It may not have been obvious to the audience, but amidst all the jargon and biological data, it is this fundamental point that rules and defines the origin debate. Is evolution a fact because teleology has been laid to rest by non scientific arguments, or is evolution vulnerable to the failure of its positivistic claims? Is this about metaphysics or is this about science? In this sense Velasco and Nelson, though debating each other on the same stage, were in completely different worlds.
Dr Hunter, as to:
ReplyDelete"Is evolution a fact because teleology has been laid to rest, or is evolution vulnerable to the failure of its positivistic claims?"
I wish the Meyer-Giberson debate would have been video cast like the Nelson-Velasco debate was, because Giberson, a ‘ahem’ Theistic Evolutionist of all things, was far more overt in his use of Theological premises to try to make his case:
"Karl Giberson’s,, PowerPoint presentation was a bunch of pictures — characters from The Simpsons, a baby with a tail, webbed feet, a strange-looking whale creature with legs,,, and the problem of “bad design.”,,, He dissed DNA as “sloppy, wasteful, and disorganized”,,, Someone else (during Q&A) asked Giberson to give an example of a beneficial mutation. Giberson couldn’t come up with one,,,,"
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/should_christia084351.html
I, for one, was very surprised to learn a few years ago that Darwinism has an abject poverty of actual observational evidence to substantiate its primary claim(s),,,
Where’s the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit
,,, and to learn that Darwinism, instead of solid empirical grounding, has its ‘scientific’ foundation based primarily in Theological considerations.
Here are a few examples. In this following video Dr. William Lane Craig is surprised to find that evolutionary biologist Dr. Ayala, a former Dominican priest, uses theological argumentation in his book to support Darwinism. Dr. Craig states that Dr. Ayala ‘makes a fundamental confusion between science and theology’ and invites him to present evidence, any empirical evidence whatsoever, that Darwinism can accomplish what he claims for it:
Refuting The Myth Of ‘Bad Design’ vs. Intelligent Design – William Lane Craig – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg
This is hardly an anomaly unique to Dr. Ayala today. In the formulation of evolutionary theory, Charles Darwin himself, who earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Theology in 1831, overtly used Theological premises in his book ‘Origin of Species’,,
Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html
To this day, Darwinists are quick to declare what God should and should not do in this universe. Paul Nelson himself has written and spoken on this topic:
The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning – Paul A. Nelson – Biology and Philosophy, 1996, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 493-517
Excerpt: Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n3n5415037038134/?MUD=MP
Dr. Seuss Biology | Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVx42Izp1ek
You yourself Dr. Hunter have written on this ‘theology instead of science’ aspect of Darwinian thought:
DeleteCornelius Hunter – Darwin’s God
http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-God-Evolution-Problem-Evil/dp/1587430118
Here is an article that makes heavy use of your book Dr. Hunter:
The Descent of Darwin – Pastor Joe Boot – (The Theodicy of Darwinism) – article
http://www.ezrainstitute.ca/ezrainstitute_ca/bank/pageimages/jubilee_2010_spring.pdf
Here, at about the 55:00 minute mark in the following video, Phillip Johnson sums up his, in my opinion, excellent lecture by noting that the refutation of his book, ‘Darwin On Trial’, in the Journal Nature, the most prestigious science journal in the world, was a theological argument about what God would and would not do and therefore Darwinism must be true, and the critique from Nature was not a refutation based on any substantiating scientific evidence for Darwinism that one would expect to be brought forth in such a prestigious venue:
Darwinism On Trial (Phillip E. Johnson) – lecture video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwj9h9Zx6Mw
In the following quote, Dr. John Avise explicitly uses Theodicy to try to make the case for Darwinism:
DeleteIt Is Unfathomable That a Loving Higher Intelligence Created the Species – Cornelius Hunter – June 2012
Excerpt: “Approximately 0.1% of humans who survive to birth carry a duplicon-related disability, meaning that several million people worldwide currently are afflicted by this particular subcategory of inborn metabolic errors. Many more afflicted individuals probably die in utero before their conditions are diagnosed. Clearly, humanity bears a substantial health burden from duplicon-mediated genomic malfunctions. This inescapable empirical truth is as understandable in the light of mechanistic genetic operations as it is unfathomable as the act of a loving higher intelligence. [112]” – Dr. John Avise – “Inside The Human Genome”
There you have it. Evil exists and a loving higher intelligence wouldn’t have done it that way.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/awesome-power-behind-evolution-it-is.html
What’s completely ironic is that Dr. John Avise’s theological argumentation from detrimental mutations for Darwinism turns out to be, (without Darwinian Theological blinders on), a very powerful ‘scientific’ argument against Darwinism since nobody can seem to find any truly beneficial mutations that are on their way to building up functional complexity/information that is greater than what is already present in life.
Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George MontaƱez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – May 2013
Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11].
1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696.
2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19.
3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358.
4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144.
5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47.
6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117.
8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526.
9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685.
10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079.
11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006
Since you claim to have expert knowledge in this field. And since you claim your arguments are superior. Then is it possible to view a debate in which you used these arguments to demolish evolutionists? And if not, why not?
ReplyDeletePeter:
DeleteNo, because while it is a fairly straightforward task to show that evolution is a scientific failure, it is entirely another thing to convince people of this, especially someone willing to stand up on a stage and defend the claim that the world arose spontaneously. Kudos to Paul Nelson for such a fine presentation of the facts.
CH: No, because while it is a fairly straightforward task to show that evolution is a scientific failure, it is entirely another thing to convince people of this, especially someone willing to stand up on a stage and defend the claim that the world arose spontaneously.
DeleteFirst, if by “scientific” you mean “logical positivism”, then who cares if it’s straightforward task? People who don’t understand science and look to you for justification for their theistic commitments?
Second, do you have a quote of Valasco actually using the term “spontaneously”?
Nor have you provided a meaningful explanation of an alternative, which IIRC was “some kind of assistance”, to make use of the term “spontaneous” relevant. What does this “assistance” actually consist of? How does it operate? What aspects does it actually effect?
When I attempted to actually take the idea of “assistance” seriously, as if it were true in reality, along with what I’m guessing you would consider uncontroversial aspects of biology, you strangely became silent on the matter and simply refused to point out at which point you disagreed. Furthermore, future attempt to clarify simply when completely unacknowledged.
Why should we take your objections seriously when, apparently, even you won’t?
CH: From a positivistic perspective Velasco has only a series of predictions (or retrodictions) which offer little hope that the astonishing biological world arose spontaneously via blind, chance events.
ReplyDeleteWikipedia > Logical Positivism > Critics
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Critics
After the Second World War's close in 1945, key tenets of logical positivism, including its atomistic philosophy of science, the verifiability principle, and the fact/value gap, drew escalated criticism. It was clear that empirical claims cannot be verified universally true.[12] Thus, as initially stated, the verifiability criterion made universal statements meaningless, and even made statements beyond empiricism for technological but not conceptual reasons meaningless, which would pose significant problems for science.[20][33][34] These problems were recognized within the movement, which hosted attempted solutions—Carnap's move to confirmation, Ayer's acceptance of weak verification—but the program drew sustained criticism from a number of directions by the 1950s. Even philosophers disagreeing among themselves on which direction general epistemology ought to take, as well as on philosophy of science, agreed that the logical empiricist program was untenable, and it became viewed as selfcontradictory.[35] The verifiability criterion of meaning was itself unverified.[35] Notable critics were Nelson Goodman, Willard Van Orman Quine, Norwood Hanson, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, J L Austin, Peter Strawson, Hilary Putnam, Ludwig von Mises and Richard Rorty.
Given the above, the question becomes, why is Cornelius arguing from a positivist perspective? Is he actually a logical positivist?
If we take this idea seriously, it that he actually is a positivist in reality and that all of his objections should conform to it, we would expect him to object to all universal statements on the same grounds, not just evolutionary theory. Yet, Cornelius’ objections fall mainly on theistic lines, such as evolution, the origin of life, environmental issues, etc. Furthermore, despite making references to positivism, like the reference in this post, Cornelius refuses if to actually confirm or deny that he himself is actually a positivist, rather than some other specific scientific perspective, despite being asked to do so directly and repeatedly.
On the other hand, Cornelius could be merely appealing to positivism because he is responding to what he considers positivist arguments are made against creationism. If Creationism isn’t science under logical positivism then neither is evolution. But this would be yet another example where Cornelius’ mythical definition of “evolutionists” necessarily includes holding a scientific perspective (positivism) that does not withstand rational criticism and has been discarded.
Regardless of what his actually position is, if by “science” Cornelius means “Logical Positivism”, it would be uncontroversial that evolutionary theory, as a universal theory, isn’t “science”. Nor could the rest of our universal theories, such as gravitational theory. But, why should we care? We’ve made progress since then.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIOW, Cornelius objection is parochial in that it ignores or denies progress we have made in the philosophy of science and epistemology.
ReplyDeleteFor example..
CH: To be sure there were weak points in Valasco’s arguments (yes humans have novel genes, no common ancestry does not have a monopoly on chromosomal fusion, biological designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy, the pentadactyl prediction has long since broken down, fossils do not fall into clean, unambiguous, gradual lineages, and so forth).
These “weak points” are all based on particular assumptions about science, such as the specific role empirical evidence plays in science, that scientific theories are derived from observations, rather than tested by them, etc. Furthermore, as I’ve pointed out, Cornelius is all over the board when it comes to what he means by science. One minute, it’s a problem when predictions do not match observations, despite conjecturing an explanation as to why and testing it, yet another minute, it’s a problem when predictions do match, but we lack an explanation as to why they match, etc.
IOW, apparently, Cornelius doesn’t want to disclose his view on “science” because that would require him to actually [01] defend that position and [02] consistently maintain that position in future objections. Neither of which suit Cornelius’ agenda, which is to merely sling “mud” at a theory he personally finds objectionable in hope that something “sticks”.
This includes employing general propose strategies that could be used to deny anything, not just evolutionary theory. For example, We cannot rule out that some supernatural being chose to create the very same world we observe, all at once, 30 seconds ago, complete with the appearance of age, false memories, etc. The consequence of such a choice would be that the origin of the post I’m responding to wouldn’t have been Cornelius Hunter, but that supernatural being instead. So, according to Cornelius’ logic, a belief that he was the origin of the post I’m responding to is religious. So would the idea that Darwin was the origin of evolutionary theory, that Einstein is the origin of General Relatively, etc. IOW one could use this logic to claim that virtually anything is religious.
BA77:
ReplyDeletePaul Nelson: Excerpt: Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science.
The disengenousness of our Darwinian friends can be seen in the statement above.
When we talk about an "intelligent" designer, they say: "Wait a second: we know what humans are capable of, but we don't have ANY FAMILIARITY with this Designer you're talking about. So to pretend that we can 'understand' this kind of 'intelligence' is silly, since we don't know what Designers are like."
Then they ask: "Who is this Designer?" Define Him.
And, yet, when it suits their purposes, without batting an eye, they take the human qualities of "benevolence" and "knowledge" (all-KNOWING=omniscience), and apply it to a Creator, quickly concluding that the facts of this life are not conformable to "benevolence" and "omniscience."
Well, if we understand the quality "good", are willing to apply it to a Creator, as well as the quality of "knowledge", and then use them to make an argument, why are we as IDists not permitted to use our understanding of "intelligence" to forge an argument?
I guess you would call it "intellectual dishonesty." Oh, wait a second, that's too harsh! :)
I’m confused. Do you want us to take your claims seriously or not?
DeleteSpecifically, we make progress by taking explanatory theories about how the world works, seriously, as if they were actually true, in reality, along with the rest of our current, best explanatory theories - and that all observations should conform to them - for the purpose of criticism. However, your comment suggests you object to us doing very thing you claim you want us to do: take your “theory” seriously.
For example, if I understand it correctly, the supposed scientific theory of ID is the claim that some abstract designer, which has no defined limitations and exhibits the ability of forethought, “just was”, complete with the knowledge of which genes, out of an astronomical number, would result in just the right proteins, which would result in just the right biological features, already present.
If we take this claim seriously, in that it was true in reality, this implies this same designer always possessed the knowledge necessary to create any organism that has, does or could possibility exist. As such, it could have created the organisms in our biosphere in absolutely any order, including the most complex to least complex or even all at once. Yet, according to you, this designer, intentionally and deliberately chose to actually create organisms in the order we observe.
Would this be an accurate summary?
If so, it’s unclear why this same supposedly knowledgeable designer wouldn’t have also had at least an inkling that intentionally and deliberately creating organisms in this specific, yet completely unnecessary, order would result the very beings it supposedly designed developing evolutionary theory. I mean, it doesn’t take an omnipotent being to realize the impact these “design decisions” would have, and that this same abstract designer, with no defined limitations, could have easily chose some other order which would have prevented its development.
IOW, apparently, you only take the claim of foresight and knowledge seriously, as if it were true in reality, when it conveniently suits your purpose. Or perhaps you think taking a theory seriously means accepting it uncritically?
It may not have been obvious to the audience, but amidst all the jargon and biological data, it is this fundamental point that rules and defines the origin debate. Is evolution a fact because teleology has been laid to rest by non scientific arguments,...
ReplyDeleteEvolution is a fact, by Gould's definition, because we observe living things changing over time so much that it would be perverse to deny that it happens. The degree of confidence we have in those observations is so high that it approaches certainty.
The developing theory of evolution, which has been constructed to account for those observations, stands on a number of lines of evidence from different fields. Those are sufficient for biology to be reasonably confident it's on the right track while allowing that there is still much that is still unknown.
As for neo-Paleyist teleology, if it is moribund a a scientific explanation it is because its proponents have singularly failed to provide any arguments or evidence that could gain it traction as science. On the contrary , there is good reason to think that, for the majority of its proponents, attacking evolution has a religious not a secular purpose.
... or is evolution vulnerable to the failure of its positivistic claims?
Could you provide an example of an actual failed "positivistic claim" of evolution, as distinct from a strawman alleged against it by critics?
Is this about metaphysics or is this about science
Or is this about a covert (and not-so-covert) religious operation against science that has far more to do with political power than it does with either religion or science?
Ian:
DeleteEvolution is a fact, by Gould's definition, because we observe living things changing over time so much that it would be perverse to deny that it happens.
No, evolutionists (including Gould) are not referring to change over time. Here is how Gould put it:
"Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce. No one understood this better than Darwin. Ernst Mayr has shown how Darwin, in defending evolution, consistently turned to organic parts and geographic distributions that make the least sense."
Ian:
DeleteCould you provide an example of an actual failed "positivistic claim" of evolution, as distinct from a strawman alleged against it by critics?
Sure, evolution claims the species arose spontaneously. That claim is, frankly, not even wrong. It would be difficult to find a claim in all of science that is more contrary to the facts. We can't even evolve a single protein.
CH: Sure, evolution claims the species arose spontaneously. That claim is, frankly, not even wrong.
DeleteJ: That's the point that PN should have hammered. His opponent claimed incessantly that UCA or common ancestry explains this or that. It explains/implies/predicts nothing. That's why there is no inductive evidence for it. The inductive criteria apply ONLY to explanations.
Rather, neither UCA or SA are rejectable per naive falsificationism (nothing is) or inductive criteria. A person who can't distinguish between an explanation and a personally-preferred history-story isn't thinking scientifically ABOUT that history.
CH: Sure, evolution claims the species arose spontaneously. That claim is, frankly, not even wrong.
DeleteYou seem to have confused Darwin's theory with Lamarck's who, like many at that time, thought mice spontaneously appeared from piles of rags. So, you're merely projecting your misrepresentation of Darwinism on others.
Specifically, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection represents a significantly more substantial explanation than mere evolution. Darwin's theory solves problems, while mere evolution does not.
Any theory about improvement raises the following question: how is the knowledge of how to make that improvement created? If it was already present at the outset, that theory is a form creationism. If it 'just happened', that theory is spontaneous generation.
For example, in an attempt to prevent the designer from being complex, knowledge laden entity, which itself would need to be explained, some theists claim their supernatural designer merely wills things into existence. However, since these same organisms perform the necessary transformations that result in building a copy of itself, this implies they would have "just appeared", complete with the knowledge of exactly which genes would produce just the right proteins, which would result in just the right features, already present. This represents the spontaneous generation of knowledge.
In addition to his "use and disuse" theory, Lamarck proposed improvements were driven by a tendency, built into the laws of nature, towards ever greater complexity. But the latter fails because not just any complexity could account for the evolution of adoptions - it has to be knowledge. So, this part of Lamarck's theory merely invokes spontaneous generation.
While you might consider Lamarck friendly to your theological beliefs, his theory bears little resemblance to the facts. The most glaring mismatch is that, in reality, evolutionary adaptations exhibit vastly different character from the changes that take place in an individual during its lifetime. Namely, the former involves the creation of new knowledge; the latter happens only when there is already an adaptation for making that change.
For example, the tendency of muscles to become stronger or weaker with use and disuse is controlled by a sophisticated, knowledge-laden, set of genes. However, our distant ancestors did not have those genes. As such, Lamarckism cannot possibly explain how the knowledge in them was created.
However, Darwin’s theory was is significantly different from the start: first, random mutations happen (they do not take account of what problem is being solved); then natural selection discards variant genes that are less capable of causing themselves to be present again in future generations.
Scott: For example, in an attempt to prevent the designer from being complex, knowledge laden entity, which itself would need to be explained, some theists claim their supernatural designer merely wills things into existence.
DeleteJ: Design explanations need only posit that the relevant designers believe things and can act intentionally based on those beliefs. Those beliefs could correspond with reality serendipitously and still, together with the other posited capacities and choice(s), EXPLAIN (i.e., IMPLY) events. The only way out is to deny that anything acts intentionally unto any end whatsoever. Is that your position?
You're confusing the clam that "a designer did it" isn't even a bad explanation, with pointing out that positing mere design in the context of explaining the origin of the biological adaptations we observe merely pushes the problem up a level with out actually improving it.
DeleteSpecifically, some designer that "just was" complete with the knowledge of which genes would result in just the right proteins, which result in just the right features, already present, doesn't serve an explanatory purpose. This is because we could more economically state that organisms "just appeared", complete with the knowledge of which genes would result in just the right proteins, which result in just the right features, already present.
IOW, your left with essentially the very same problem you started with, because you've only moved the knowledge from one place to another. it's unclear why you think this actually improves the problem. Apparently, you're making some assumption that I'm not.
Actually Scott, 'a designer did it' is just the beginning. The interesting part is when we take the next step and ask 'how did the designer do it'.
DeleteWhen we ask this question, we have lots of work we can do. If fact, all the great scientists like Newton and even Einstein took this approach.
But if we say evolution did it, what do we do next? Ask 'how did evolution do it?'. But we can't ask that question, since evolution doesnt design.
Its a real conundrum that gets proponents of evolution tied in knots trying to explain life without reference to intelligence. You're (pl) all over the map, trying to cover so many bases.
Just doesnt work.
Design is by far a better explanation. Gaps in our knowledge of the how and why of designs is not evidence of its weakness as an explanation. It simply drives us to want to understand more about the marvels of life's design.
In fact, looking to nature to provide inspiration for optimal designs is all the rage, even in my business of textiles. So denying design seems a rather limiting position to take.
Probably why there has been so little breakthroughs in biology. No intelligence allowed.
Scott: IOW, your left with essentially the very same problem you started with
DeleteJ: You're missing the whole point. CH, most ID'ists and myself are arguing against the claim that there is overwhelming positive evidence for UCA and other a-plausible common ancestry relationships. That is utterly false. That's the problem being debated here. It's a problem because it results in much less academic freedom and civility than is conducive to the advancement of REAL science.
IOW, Scott, most ID'ists are not pushing for the ACCEPTANCE of ID hypotheses in biology. That is not the point of any of this debate. The point is that you shouldn't suppress dissent and ridicule or discriminate against dissenters when you have no evidence for your own view, which is the current case for UCA.
DeleteSteve: 'a designer did it' is just the beginning. The interesting part is when we take the next step and ask 'how did the designer do it'.
DeleteFantastic concept! Now what have you discovered about how, why, what, when, where? Can you propose a testable hypothesis?
Steve: But if we say evolution did it, what do we do next? Ask 'how did evolution do it?'.
Through descent with modification from common ancestors, and it leads to all sorts of testable hypothesis.
"It has a neck."
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/04/your_inner_fish_book_and_pbs_documentary_on_tiktaalik_and_neil_shubin.html
Jeff: REAL science
DeleteREAL science™
Jeff: REAL science
DeleteZ: REAL science™
J: Try definable science. That'd be a start.
Jeff: Try definable science. That'd be a start.
DeleteThat's the crux of the matter. You define terms in idiosyncratic ways, then argue from there.
You claim there is no evidence for the tree of descent because no one can predict exactly how the tree of descent will grow. This misrepresents how science works. It is valid science to determine that trees are shaped by a branching process, rather than suddenly appearing in the forest, even if we can't predict exactly how that branching process will occur in a particular tree.
Z: You claim there is no evidence for the tree of descent because no one can predict exactly how the tree of descent will grow.
DeleteJ: No. What I showed is that your non-trivial prediction is on par with the non-trivial kind of implications of certain ID hypotheses.
And no one has a problem with branching. What is not the case, however, is that there is any reason to believe that the branching process proceeds from a single as opposed to several ancestors.
Now, that doesn't mean that naturalistic UCA isn't the only naturalistic hypothesis that you can find many people to take seriously. But that doesn't mean there is inductive evidence for it. There isn't.
If you want to say that NATURAL science MUST use UCA as a working historical belief, fine. But that's different than saying there's inductive evidence for it. There isn't.
CH would be content if self-professed, tax-subsidized "scientists" would just admit this and then proceed to define what it is they mean by "evidence" when they speak of the "overwhelming evidence" of UCA. But we know why that isn't going to happen.
... and, Z, why not just define "science" as you can conceive of it?
DeleteJeff: And no one has a problem with branching.
DeleteBranching descent is what we mean by common descent.
Jeff: What is not the case, however, is that there is any reason to believe that the branching process proceeds from a single as opposed to several ancestors.
Darwin supposed there could be several ancestors, but the evidence strongly supports universal common ancestry, or something very close to it.
Jeff: If you want to say that NATURAL science MUST use UCA as a working historical belief, fine.
Where would you get that idea? Darwin originally proposed the possibility of one or a few ancestors.
Jeff: But that's different than saying there's inductive evidence for it. There isn't.
You can only determine that by actually examining the evidence, the most important of which is the nested hierarchy.
Jeff: Z, why not just define "science" as you can conceive of it?
We define science methodologically: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation, repeat; a recursive system of matching theory with observation.
Jeff: CH would be content if self-professed, tax-subsidized "scientists" would just admit this and then proceed to define what it is they mean by "evidence" when they speak of the "overwhelming evidence" of UCA. But we know why that isn't going to happen.
DeleteThe latter has happened, which negates the need for the former. I've referenced it here before, but no one has yet to address it.
What did Karl Popper
Really Say about Evolution
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-evolution
What Popper calls the historical sciences do not make predictions about long past unique events (postdictions), which obviously would not be testable. (Several recent authors—including Stephen Jay Gould in Discover, July 1982—make this mistake.) These sciences make hypotheses involving past events which must predict (that is, have logical consequences) for the present state of the system in question. Here the testing procedure takes for granted the general laws and theories and is testing the specific conditions (or initial conditions, as Popper usually calls them) that held for the system.
A scientist, on the basis of much comparative anatomy and physiology, might hypothesize that, in the distant past, mammals evolved from reptiles. This would have testable consequences for the present state of the system (earth's surface with the geological strata in it and the animal and plant species living on it) in the form of reptile-mammal transition fossils that should exist, in addition to other necessary features of the DNA, developmental systems, and so forth, of the present-day reptiles and mammals.
Here's a hint, logical positivism was discarded over 50 years ago. Complaining that UCA isn't "science" under logical positivism is a red herring. Who cares?
Jeff: What is not the case, however, is that there is any reason to believe that the branching process proceeds from a single as opposed to several ancestors.
DeleteZ: Darwin supposed there could be several ancestors, but the evidence strongly supports universal common ancestry, or something very close to it.
J: There's no inductive evidence for it. And as usual, you refuse to define what you mean by "evidence." That's because you can't.
Z: You can only determine that by actually examining the evidence, the most important of which is the nested hierarchy.
J: The nested hierarchy that includes all extant and extinct terrestrial species doesn't follow from any enumerable set of hypothetico-deductive axioms, much less ones that have any discernible correspondence to what we know are the historical effects of historical mutations. Thus, there is no inductive evidence for UCA. Inductive criteria apply ONLY to explanations, not story-telling.
Jeff: Z, why not just define "science" as you can conceive of it?
Z: We define science methodologically: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation, repeat; a recursive system of matching theory with observation.
J: You haven't yet articulated a hypothesis about conditions in the Precambrian that implies the subsequent biological events. So all you're admitting, unwittingly, is that UCA is thus far a non-scientific hypothesis.
Jeff: CH would be content if self-professed, tax-subsidized "scientists" would just admit this and then proceed to define what it is they mean by "evidence" when they speak of the "overwhelming evidence" of UCA. But we know why that isn't going to happen.
DeleteScott: The latter has happened, which negates the need for the former. I've referenced it here before, but no one has yet to address it.
"...A scientist, on the basis of much comparative anatomy and physiology, might hypothesize that, in the distant past, mammals evolved from reptiles. This would have testable consequences for the present state of the system (earth's surface with the geological strata in it and the animal and plant species living on it) in the form of reptile-mammal transition fossils that should exist, in addition to other necessary features of the DNA, developmental systems, and so forth, of the present-day reptiles and mammals. "
J: None of those putative "consequences" are logical implications of the hypothesis in question. Both you and that author are oblivious to the nature of hypothetico-deductive methodology. Rather, all we know is that those system states don't contradict the hypothesis in question. But neither do they contradict the hypothesis that mammals had separate ancestry.
Jeff: There's no inductive evidence for it.
DeleteThere's ample scientific evidence.
Jeff: And as usual, you refuse to define what you mean by "evidence."
We've defined it many times. A hypothesis is proposed to explain a phenomenon. Deductions are made from the hypothesis to predict novel observations. These observations are then made to determine whether they are consistent with the hypothesis. The more narrowly the hypothesis cleaves the universe, such as a well-devised falsification, the stronger the confirmation. The more ways we can confirm the hypothesis, especially with independent methodologies, the stronger the confirmation.
Jeff: The nested hierarchy that includes all extant and extinct terrestrial species doesn't follow from any enumerable set of hypothetico-deductive axioms, much less ones that have any discernible correspondence to what we know are the historical effects of historical mutations.
Your argument doesn't become stronger on repetition. Saying trees grow by bifurcation is a valid scientific claim, subject to scientific investigation, and telling us something important about tree.
Jeff: You haven't yet articulated a hypothesis about conditions in the Precambrian that implies the subsequent biological events.
Sure we have. Common descent with modification.,
Jeff: You haven't yet articulated a hypothesis about conditions in the Precambrian that implies the subsequent biological events.
DeleteZ: Sure we have. Common descent with modification.,
J: Nope. Common descent per se is an abstract idea. As such, it implies no particular descendants and involves no particular common ancestor. You're oblivious to the hypothetico-deductive method. ID'ists embrace that method. They just understand it. You don't.
J1: ID'ists embrace that method. They just understand it.
DeleteJ2: I should qualify, of course. ID'ists who say there is inductive evidence for UCA don't understand it any more than you do.
Jeff: Common descent per se is an abstract idea.
DeleteIt a claim about the relatedness of life.
Jeff: As such, it implies no particular descendants and involves no particular common ancestor.
The claim is that for any two organisms, they share a common ancestor.
You aren't making arguments. You're simply saying "Is not" over and over again. '
Jeff: Common descent per se is an abstract idea.
DeleteZ: It a claim about the relatedness of life.
J: Right. It's just a claim about the relatedness of life. It's NOT an explanation of anything.
Jeff: As such, it implies no particular descendants and involves no particular common ancestor.
Z: The claim is that for any two organisms, they share a common ancestor.
J: No. The universal common ancestor and its first-generation descendants have no common ancestor by the same definition of "ancestor" that you're using in the other "claim." You're just wrong about that. But you have great difficulty with definitions, as we've seen.
Z: You aren't making arguments. You're simply saying "Is not" over and over again
J: I'm showing that YOU aren't making an argument. I don't have to make an argument. You're the one blabbing to the world that youI have overwhelming evidence for UCA when in fact you have no inductive evidence for it whatsoever, precisely because you have no explanation for it. You just CLAIM it's true.
I think that neither SA nor UCA have plausibility apart from ID. Because apart from a specific version of ID, there is no way to account for the reality of warranted belief/plausibility in the first place. Scott agrees that there is no such discernible thing as warranted belief/positive evidence if ID is false (and he thinks it is false), but then he wonders why people who believe in warranted belief/positive evidence have no reason to take him seriously. He diverges from most humans at a very fundamental level, as do you.
Z: The claim is that for any two organisms, they share a common ancestor.
DeleteJ1: No. The universal common ancestor and its first-generation descendants have no common ancestor by the same definition of "ancestor" that you're using in the other "claim." You're just wrong about that. But you have great difficulty with definitions, as we've seen.
J2: And if all you mean by any two organisms is any two LIVING organisms, then that claim is consistent with SA. So you haven't differentiated your hypothesis in any testable way.
J2: J2: And if all you mean by any two organisms is any two LIVING organisms, then that claim is consistent with SA. So you haven't differentiated your hypothesis in any testable way.
DeleteJ3: If you mean any two living organisms of the same species. Regardless. There is no explanation of UCA. Thus, there is no novel prediction from the claim. The only thing that follows from the truth of a single proposition is that the negation of it is false. In that sense, neither the mere claim of SA or UCA is a scientific/testable hypothesis.
You need one of two things:
Delete1) Hypothetico-deductive axioms describing relevantly-timed Precambrian conditions that IMPLY the subsequent tree-structured biological history,
OR
2) a model which, when the relevant times are plugged into it, generate results which can be mapped to the real world data (fossils, currently-known fossil succession, extant creatures, etc) consistently with other theories with great explanatory breadth.
We have neither. You JUST have a claim.
Jeff: It's just a claim about the relatedness of life. It's NOT an explanation of anything.
DeleteIt explains the nested hierarchy, as well as the fossil succession, among other things.
Jeff: You're the one blabbing to the world that youI have overwhelming evidence for UCA when in fact you have no inductive evidence for it whatsoever, precisely because you have no explanation for it.
Jeff: "Is not!"
Jeff: The universal common ancestor and its first-generation descendants have no common ancestor by the same definition of "ancestor" that you're using in the other "claim."
Now you're just trying to make trivial points. There is a root to the posited tree. In any case, you're wrong. The universal common ancestor is not the first life, so it does have ancestors.
Jeff: And if all you mean by any two organisms is any two LIVING organisms, then that claim is consistent with SA.
Assuming by "SA" you mean separate ancestry, then obviously it would not be consistent.
Jeff: If you mean any two living organisms of the same species.
Any two organisms share a common ancestor except possibly the universal common ancestor.
Jeff: there is no novel prediction from the claim.
Of course there are, such as transitional fossils found in particular stratum.
Jeff: It's just a claim about the relatedness of life. It's NOT an explanation of anything.
DeleteZ: It explains the nested hierarchy, as well as the fossil succession, among other things.
J: No, that mere positing of an abstract kind of descent doesn't imply any PARTICULAR terrestrial critters. Thus it doesn't predict THE nested hierarchy that we're trying to explain. It merely implies that whatever critters descended would fit into a species of nested hierarchy. You're utterly confused.
Jeff: If you mean any two living organisms of the same species.
Z: Any two organisms share a common ancestor except possibly the universal common ancestor.
J: So how few arbitrary propositions are you willing to posit to IMPLY abiogenesis in the precambrian? Then I'll posit that many SA's. At that point, we'll see who's ahead in terms of inductive criteria.
Z: Now you're just trying to make trivial points. There is a root to the posited tree. In any case, you're wrong. The universal common ancestor is not the first life, so it does have ancestors.
J: Sure, but not by the same definition of "ancestor." So posit the relevant axioms to IMPLY all these distinct events and I'll posit SA's. We'll apply inductive criteria then.
Z: Of course there are, such as transitional fossils found in particular stratum.
J: Those aren't implications of any posited precambrian conditions. They are not implications of any model that models a whole UCA tree consistent with currently-inferred fossil succession. You're UTTERLY confused.
Jeff: No, that mere positing of an abstract kind of descent doesn't imply any PARTICULAR terrestrial critters.
DeleteNo, it doesn't. But pointing out that a tree grows by a branching process is a non-trivial fact about trees, even if we can't predict the exact branching pattern.
It's quite trivial when you consider the fact that a historical tree would be precisely one tree whereas the number of merely conceptually possible trees consistent with the abstraction is quite large. Implying a tree consistent with currently-inferred fossil succession requires tons of hypothetico-deductive axioms if you also assume that specific variation is caused in large part by relatively specific mutations. And each one of those axioms positing phenotypic/morpological effects of mutations that are neither tested nor implications of tested hypotheses would be merely speculative, amounting to gross story-telling rather than relevant explanation.
DeleteJeff It's quite trivial ...
DeleteIt's hardly trivial to point out that trees are formed of branches rather than webs or some other topology.
Jeff It's quite trivial ... when you consider the fact that a historical tree would be precisely one tree whereas the number of merely conceptually possible trees consistent with the abstraction is quite large.
While a particular tree is just an infinitesimal of possible trees, a tree structure is an infinitesimal of possible topologies.
Jeff It's quite trivial ... when you consider the fact that a historical tree would be precisely one tree whereas the number of merely conceptually possible trees consistent with the abstraction is quite large.
DeleteZ: While a particular tree is just an infinitesimal of possible trees, a tree structure is an infinitesimal of possible topologies.
J: That's no help. The first infinitesimal alone renders the probability of a specific tree, calculated the only way we can, basically zero. So all you have is a zero probability calculated the only way we can do a calculation combined with a lack of an explanation for any relevant tree, rendering the hypothesis void of inductive evidence. The only other approach is to just say the truth of the UCA hypothesis just seems OBVIOUS to you. That's what I recommend you admit. It'll make you seem intellectually honest.
Jeff: That's no help.
DeleteHandwaving. Of course it's a help. It allows for prediction, such as transitional fossils, and the ordering of events.
Jeff: CH would be content if self-professed, tax-subsidized "scientists" would just admit this and then proceed to define what it is they mean by "evidence" when they speak of the "overwhelming evidence" of UCA. But we know why that isn't going to happen.
DeleteScott: The latter has happened, which negates the need for the former. I've referenced it here before, but no one has yet to address it.
"...A scientist, on the basis of much comparative anatomy and physiology, might hypothesize that, in the distant past, mammals evolved from reptiles. This would have testable consequences for the present state of the system (earth's surface with the geological strata in it and the animal and plant species living on it) in the form of reptile-mammal transition fossils that should exist, in addition to other necessary features of the DNA, developmental systems, and so forth, of the present-day reptiles and mammals. "
Jeff: None of those putative "consequences" are logical implications of the hypothesis in question.
Yes, they are. Good theories prohibit things. Our inability to predict future evolution doesn't mean the theory doesn't make predictions based on prohibitions.
Jeff: Both you and that author are oblivious to the nature of hypothetico-deductive methodology.
Actually, it's you who is confused, as you haven't explained how your version of "hypothetico-deductive methodology" actually works, in practice.
First, it doesn't withstand rational criticism.
Second, we have better explanations for the same "steps" you keep claiming to make. For example, when I ask you how your criteria for deciding which ideas are basic and non-basic, the little you described was comparable with conjecture and criticism. When I pointed this out, you strangely became silent on this process and haven't elaborated since.
Jeff: Rather, all we know is that those system states don't contradict the hypothesis in question. But neither do they contradict the hypothesis that mammals had separate ancestry.
Nothing contradicts separate ancestry via a abstract designer which has no defined limitations. That's the problem. As such, there is not logical consequences for the current state of the system by which we can test.
For example, this said designer could have created organisms in any order because, having no defined limitation, it was not limited from possessing the knowledge how to design any organism that has existed, does exist or could exist. As such, it could have created organisms in any order of complexity, such as most to least complex, or even all at once.
On the other hand, biological Darwinism is the theory that the knowledge of how to build biological organisms was genuinely created over time. It literally didn't exist in the past. Nature cannot create what it lacks the knowledge to build. It's that simple.
You have no explanation for this order other than, "that's just what some designer must have wanted."
Furthermore, you're objections are parochial, because they are narrow in scope.
DeleteFor example, some designer with no defined limitations could be pulling on objects according to their mass, but chooses to make an exception on the small scale, for some good reason we cannot comprehend.
Those system states "don't contradict the hypothesis in question" either. Does that mean we have no evidence that gravity is a natural law that acts the same everywhere in the universe?
Are dinosaurs *the* explanations for fossils, despite the existence of an infinite number of different interpretations for fossils that indicate dinosaurs never existed?
IOW, you're appealing to a general purpose strategy that could be used to deny absolutely anything, not just evolutionary theory.
Jeff: That's no help.
DeleteZ: Handwaving. Of course it's a help. It allows for prediction, such as transitional fossils, and the ordering of events.
J: No. You're oblivious to hypothetico-deductive methodology. No specific quantity or specific kinds of transitions are implied by bifurcated descent. Bifurcated descent doesn't MEAN unlimited variation, much less any relevant degree of variation in the time-frame you posit. You're utterly confused.
Scott: IOW, you're appealing to a general purpose strategy that could be used to deny absolutely anything, not just evolutionary theory.
DeleteJ: Scott, you're utterly confused. I'm not talking about a strategy to "deny" anything. I'm pointing out that there is no positive, inductive evidence for UCA. You agree with me. No one here agrees with you, however, that there is NO positive evidence for ANY hypothesis.
Scott: You have no explanation for this order other than, "that's just what some designer must have wanted."
DeleteJ: There is no explanation of any history with the detail you're talking about. It would take more propositions to imply the effects from the relevant initial conditions than a human can enumerate. You're UTTERLY confused.
Jeff: You're oblivious to hypothetico-deductive methodology.
DeleteShubin and his crew walk out into an Arctic wilderness and pull out the fossil of a fishapod. Sorry, that beats any manner of Is Nots on your part.
Jeff: You're oblivious to hypothetico-deductive methodology.
DeleteZ: Shubin and his crew walk out into an Arctic wilderness and pull out the fossil of a fishapod. Sorry, that beats any manner of Is Nots on your part.
J: Like I said, you're oblivious to hypothetico-deductive methodology. One can only stand in awe at your oblivion to basic deductive and logic, never mind inductive logic.
Shubin must be a magician then, because he stated a hypothesis, made a prediction, and pulled the fishapod out of the hat.
DeleteNo,, it wasn't a prediction implied by anything we know about genetics. And to the extent that an implication existed, it was and is completely untestable. The only way it could be tested is if it were known that:
Delete1) currently-inferred fossil succession corresponds EXACTLY to actual fossil succession,
and
2) actual fossil succession corresponds EXACTLY with existential succession.
But UCA'ists already deny that species have to even show up in the fossil record, let alone such that their existential origin timing would be preserved in such a way that you could OBSERVE that relative temporal ordering. You are about as confused about basic deductive logic as any human being I've dealt with, Z. Please tell me you're not making a living off the taxpayers.
Jeff: it wasn't a prediction implied by anything we know about genetics
DeleteIt was based on what we know about heredity.
Jeff: And to the extent that an implication existed, it was and is completely untestable.
It was tested, and verified, something beyond your ken.
Dr. Hunter, thanks for the link to this video. I was having trouble finding it, and I wanted to watch it.
ReplyDeleteThe debate is confusing and frustrating. It appears that Valasco was arguing for Universal Common Descent. It appears that Nelson was arguing against Darwinism (natural selection acting on random mutation).
This places me in a quandary. I hold to UCD (albeit with a loose hand especially through the cambrian explosion and the separation of the domains.) I also am very convinced that the darwinian explanation is painfully inadequate.
Somehow the equation UCD = Darwinism must be broken. Somehow these debates must begin by debating the same topic.
bFast: Somehow the equation UCD = Darwinism must be broken.
DeleteWell, common descent is integral to the theory of evolution. However, there's nothing preventing you from proposing a different theory that also encompasses common descent.
Zachriel, yes common descent is necessary for darwinism. However, darwinism is not necessary for common descent. Proving common descent does not prove darwinism. Yet in the debate Valasco attempted to prove common descent, and Nelson attempted to disprove darwinism.
DeleteCommon Descent is necessary for darwinism to be true. Darwinism is not a foregone conclusion from proving common descent.
BTW another theory is not required. It should be enough to show, as Nelson does, that common descent is not an adequate explanation.
bFast: common descent is necessary for {the theory of evolution}.
DeleteYes. Common descent has been part of the theory of evolution since Darwin.
bFast: {the theory of evolution} is not necessary for common descent
Yes. There are an infinitude of possible theories that include common descent.
bFast: Proving common descent does not prove {the theory of evolution}.
As the theory of evolution entails common descent, evidence for common descent supports that aspect of the theory of evolution. The evidence tends to be linked, but evidence strictly for common descent does not necessarily support other aspects of evolutionary theory.
bFast: Yet in the debate Valasco attempted to prove common descent, and Nelson attempted to disprove darwinism.
Being related to a monkey does seem to be a major objection of many in the creationist camp.
bFast: another theory is not required
As the theory of evolution is strongly supported, it will almost certainly take a new theory to supplant it.
bFast: It should be enough to show, as Nelson does, that common descent is not an adequate explanation.
Common descent is not a sufficient to explain adaptation, if that is what you mean. However, many creationists deny common descent. What other creationists do is wave their hands and say they don't care about common descent, but as much of the evidence for the mechanisms of evolutionary change are tied up with common descent, it's important to establish common descent in order to understand that evidence.
"Being related to a monkey does seem to be a major objection of many in the creationist camp."
DeleteYup. But it is not a major objection to my camp. I find the human-chimp common ancestor case to be far too strong to ignore.
"As the theory of evolution is strongly supported, it will almost certainly take a new theory to supplant it."
Nelson, Dr. Hunter, Behe and many others make a painfully compelling case that darwinism is not correct. The strongest case I see in opposition to their position is the "the only other option is the G word, and that is verboten" case.
"However, many creationists deny common descent." Some of us, like Behe, don't. I personally find the case for common descent to be compelling. I have difficulty finding any explanation other than common descent to explain many of the phenomena found in human and chimp DNA.
That said, I haven't seen any darwinist honestly address the puzzle of HAR1F, let alone the puzzle of orphan genes. This is just two of a plethora of puzzles that are as difficult to explain with darwinism as the human-chimp DNA features are to explain without common descent.
bFast: the puzzle of HAR1F
DeleteIt's called natural selection.
bFast: let alone the puzzle of orphan genes
Many genes thought to be orphans actually have predecessors.
While there is still a lot of mystery surrounding orphan genes, there is nothing in evolutionary theory preventing the de novo creation of new genes.
Zachriel, "It's called natural selection." C'mon Zachriel, you accuse creationists of "hand waving". What do you call this?
DeleteThe HAR1F rna gene is ultra-conserved across at least the mammals (the quadrupeds, I think.) If I understand correctly, that should be proof enough that (with the exception of three bp that seem to wander about) the thing is absolutely resistant to single point mutations.
However, when we look at the 3d shape of the HAR1F we notice that much of the mutation activity involves extending the size of one of the loops. This extension requires at least 6 simultaneous, non-contiguous mutations. In "Edge of Evolution", Behe establishes that such is well beyond the scope of realistic random chance.
On orphans, again, your hands are waving, Zachriel. You said, "there is nothing in evolutionary theory preventing the de novo creation of new genes." Well, there's this little thing called statistical likelihood. The non-darwinian community has been discussing it for years. Their claim has realistic merit.
I recognize the case that the statistical likelihood of a dart hitting the spot on the wall that it happened to hit is extremely low, but there is nothing particularly special about the spot chosen. There is no pre-existent target. When a pre-existent target exists, statistical likelihood becomes valid.
The pre-existent target of the orphan gene is much narrower than "its got some measurable function". It has to have a function that actually benefits the organism. I consider a protein is equivalent to a part in an automobile. Making some random push-rod is not likely to make the car, well, better. In fact, if you go into a parts store, and start grabbing parts at random, you are very unlikely to find a part that makes the car better. By the same token, the requirement of the orphan gene is that it must make the organism more functional. I recognize that the day an orphan is born, it can be very rough around the edges. I recognize that when the orphan is born it may be so, well, quirky, that it barely functions. Yet its "barely function" characteristic must make the organism better or the part will either be rejected, or the organism will be purged by the wonderful power of natural selection.
Orphan genes, therefore, obligate statistical analysis. Orphan genes, as far as I can tell, can best be described as, well, miracles.
bFast: The HAR1F rna gene is ultra-conserved across at least the mammals (the quadrupeds, I think.)
DeleteAmniotes.
bFast: If I understand correctly, that should be proof enough that (with the exception of three bp that seem to wander about) the thing is absolutely resistant to single point mutations.
So? If it's on a local peak, it's not going to change.
bFast: However, when we look at the 3d shape of the HAR1F we notice that much of the mutation activity involves extending the size of one of the loops. This extension requires at least 6 simultaneous, non-contiguous mutations.
How was it determined they have to be simultaneous? Do you have a citation? You might want to look at Ziegeler et al., NMR studies of HAR1 RNA secondary structures reveal conformational dynamics in the human RNA, ChemBioChem 2012.
bFast: Well, there's this little thing called statistical likelihood. The non-darwinian community has been discussing it for years.
There's a reasonable probability of new genes, especially when shuffling exons from old genes.
bFast: In "Edge of Evolution", Behe establishes that such is well beyond the scope of realistic random chance.
That's funny. Behe "establishes" that rare events happen rarely.
bFast: The pre-existent target of the orphan gene is much narrower than "its got some measurable function". It has to have a function that actually benefits the organism.
Sure, or at least not harm the organism. Many proteins are nearly neutral in effect, but may remain in the proteome.
Is shuffling exons enough? Don;t you also have to make specific changes in specific amino acids? And don't yu have to make compensatory changes so that they don't lose stability?
Deletenatschuster: Is shuffling exons enough?
DeleteThere's significant evidence that that is what happened. In any case, it can be shown that recombination of what already works is much more likely to yield function than random combination.
Dr. Hunter, please help me understand Dr. Valasco's argument. Dr. Valasco brings up the oft discussed laryngeal nerve. He says that the reason the nerve takes a funny path is because in fish it takes a straight path from brain to gills "because the heart is inbetween the brain and gills".
ReplyDeleteDr. Hunter, I fish. I clean my fish. A fish's heart is not at all between the brain and the gills. I look up fish anatomy on wikipedia. Their picture shows the heart to be low in the fish's body, and far towards the tail from the gills. Please help me understand the apparent contradiction between the data and Dr. Valasco's statement.
Dear bFast, Joel Velasco here. I probably did say that the heart is between the gills and the brain during the debate. This is a mistake unless you have a liberal understanding of 'heart'. The issue is that the nerve travels past the aortic arch. Thus when the organisms started to have necks and the heart started to move further down in the body, the arch had to move with it. There are lots of good discussions of this online - for example, http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/the-longest-cell-in-the-history-of-life/
ReplyDeleteJoel Velasco here. Thanks to Cornelius for posting about this debate. I hadn't even known that the debate was available to watch online. There are several things here that I could talk about, but one thing that might be worth pointing out is that I was not trying to rule out design or talk about teleology at all. I was specifically focused on common ancestry and the way I understand that, it is completely consistent with design and with teleology. Though personally, I don't think organisms are designed. But I didn't try to talk about that (though I did of course make suggestive comments). There is a reason for that - that was what was agreed upon (at Paul's request, but I wanted that too). In fact the discovery institute insisted that we not say 'creation vs. evolution' or anything like that and so if you think that I was too focused on common ancestry, well, there is a reason for that. But I do agree that Common Ancestry is the fundamental backbone of evolution. If we are related, the fact that there must have been change over time just follows by logic (from the fact that we are now different). Yes, we also have theories about how this happened and they are worth discussing as well, but that is not what we were supposed to be doing. -- I also want to make a quick comment about 'affirming the consequent'. If you have a theory that predicts (retrodicts is fine) some phenomenon X and X is true, this is evidence for the theory. Of course the truth of the theory doesn't follow logically - that is a fallacy. But it is evidence for the theory at least in normal cases. Certainly any reasonable theory of evidence entails this (for example, in Bayesian confirmation theory, if H entails O, then O is evidence for H for any set of priors except the extreme 0/1 cases).
ReplyDeleteJoel:
DeleteI also want to make a quick comment about 'affirming the consequent'. If you have a theory that predicts (retrodicts is fine) some phenomenon X and X is true, this is evidence for the theory. Of course the truth of the theory doesn't follow logically - that is a fallacy. But it is evidence for the theory at least in normal cases.
But when you say "the case is overwhelming" [around 48 minute mark], in reference to the molecular marker evidence confirming evolutionary predictions, it sounds like affirming the consequent.