This jerk is David Berlinski a mathematician and a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. He's not a biologist and neither are his "skeptical" mathematician friends. I wonder what he would say if a bunch of evolutionary biologists expressed skepticism about vector calculus and scaler fields? They sound like pretty crazy ideas to me.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Breaking News... Mathematicians Don't Believe in Evolution!
This jerk is David Berlinski a mathematician and a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. He's not a biologist and neither are his "skeptical" mathematician friends. I wonder what he would say if a bunch of evolutionary biologists expressed skepticism about vector calculus and scaler fields? They sound like pretty crazy ideas to me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
36 comments :
Sorry if this is a repeat, but I don't see my comment:
This is one of my favorite ignorant remarks of all time, from, yes, Berlinski:
And another thing. It is easy to understand. Anyone can become an evolutionary biologist in an afternoon. Just read a book. Most of them are half illustrations anyway. It's not like studying mathematics or physics, lot of head splitting stuff there.
Why we call them IDiots
See, it's not like biologists know math or physics, or at least the critic of biology who learned biology in an afternoon from a picture book is pretty sure that they don't.
Berlinski would be appalled at biologists opining in mathematics, to answer Larry's question, because he considers them to be virtually uneducated dolts.
I think that his native intelligence is respectable, but he's ranted himself into major Tard-dom via his ignorance-born arrogance.
Glen D
Berlinski was the schmuck that Richard Dawkins was referring to in his oft repeated quote, "someone who rejects the theory of evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked (but he didn't want to consider that)." He further said that Berlinski was neither ignorant, stupid, or insane.
By the way, Dr. Berlinski is not, repeat not a mathematician. His PhD is in philosophy and to my knowledge he has never published a paper in a peer reviewed mathematics journal.
You asked how we (mathematicians) would like it if evolutionary biologists expressed skepticism of calculus and scalar fields.
Well, sir, how would you like it if we called some crank with no molecular biology credentials a "molecular biologist"???
This guy is no mathematician.
I checked out the mathematical reviews (American Mathematical Society). They list the following:
Publications results for "Author=(Berlinski )"
MR1815707 (2001k:01053) Berlinski, David Newton's gift. How Sir Isaac Newton unlocked the system of the world. Free Press, New York, 2000. xviii+217 pp. ISBN: 0-684-84392-7 (Reviewer: Massimo Galuzzi) 01A70 (01A45 01A50)
PDF Doc Del Clipboard Journal Article
MR1766416 (2001f:01035) Berlinski, David The advent of the algorithm. The idea that rules the world. Harcourt, Inc., New York, 2000. xxii+345 pp. ISBN: 0-15-100338-6 (Reviewer: Wilfried Sieg) 01A60 (00A30 00A71 03-03 68-03)
PDF Doc Del Clipboard Journal Article
MR1224837 Berlinski, David Knowing, knowledge, known. Logique et Anal. (N.S.) 33 (1990), no. 129-130, 3--20. 03B45 (03B65 68T30)
PDF Doc Del Clipboard Journal Article
MR0828285 Berlinski, David The language of life. Complexity, language, and life: mathematical approaches, 231--267, Biomathematics, 16, Springer, Berlin, 1986. 92A05
PDF Doc Del Clipboard Journal Article
MR0456629 (56 #14853) Berlinski, David Mathematical models of the world. Mathematical methods of the social sciences. Synthese 31 (1975), no. 2, 211--227. (Reviewer: Guy Jumarie) 93A10 (58C25 58F10)
(note: the biomathematics article is from a series that often publishes minimally refereed conference proceedings. ) All of these are expository articles; none are mathematical research.
This guy is NOT A MATHEMATICIAN.
Sorry for the format: hopefully this is more readable.
Publications results for "Author=(Berlinski )"
MR1815707 (2001k:01053) Berlinski, David Newton's gift. How Sir Isaac Newton unlocked the system of the world. Free Press, New York, 2000. xviii+217 pp. ISBN: 0-684-84392-7 (Reviewer: Massimo Galuzzi) 01A70 (01A45 01A50)
MR1766416 (2001f:01035) Berlinski, David The advent of the algorithm. The idea that rules the world. Harcourt, Inc., New York, 2000. xxii+345 pp. ISBN: 0-15-100338-6 (Reviewer: Wilfried Sieg) 01A60 (00A30 00A71 03-03 68-03)
MR1224837 Berlinski, David Knowing, knowledge, known. Logique et Anal. (N.S.) 33 (1990), no. 129-130, 3--20. 03B45 (03B65 68T30)
MR0828285 Berlinski, David The language of life. Complexity, language, and life: mathematical approaches, 231--267, Biomathematics, 16, Springer, Berlin, 1986. 92A05
MR0456629 (56 #14853) Berlinski, David Mathematical models of the world. Mathematical methods of the social sciences. Synthese 31 (1975), no. 2, 211--227. (Reviewer: Guy Jumarie) 93A10 (58C25 58F10)
So, he is no mathematician, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was, or if some of "his friends" are. I don't have any statistics about this, but I have the impression that you will find more believers (in god, ID, ufos, whatever) among mathematicians than among scientists. Despite being trained for rigor, we (mathematicians) are not trained in the scientific method, we don't look at data, and we do indulge in "absolute truths". A mathematician can believe any B.S. without suffering the level of cognitive dissonance a scientist would.
Don't trust mathematicians; I've heard that some of them are rather partial to so-called 'imaginary numbers' which clearly don't even exist!
And they teach this stuff to our children at taxpayers expense!
Ii is absolutely true in general that mathematicians often believe in nonsense, I personally have had lots of disputes with mathematicians (very smart people otherwise, not crackpots like those at the DI) over evolution and it seems that they just can't get the idea...
I think there are three main reasons for that:
1. As it was already said, they are not trained in the scientific method. You will probably not hear arguments of this sort: "Mathematics exists independently of us, therefore there exists some inherent order in the universe" from a life scientist
2. Modern math is so abstract that lots of people who go deep into it just lose sense of reality. Which also leads to point 1.
3. Despite the mathematical rigor, I've heard many mathematicians refer to the "mathematical intuition" as one of the best qualities for a mathematician... Which can lead to a lot of confusion when it comes to real physical science
And of course you often hear the same old "biology is easy" not only from mathematicians, but also from physicists and chemists. All these people, ironically, often know very little about it...
and so on...
Basically mathematician should just shut up and not speak on things they don't know
The mutual disrespect between members of different disciplines is all too apparent from this post and its comments. As a member of the public who is looking for answers I have to attempt to factor out this human aspect in order to get a handle on the subject. I disapprove of Berlinki’s statements belittling biology, but in favor of the mathematicians, physicists and philosophers one has admit that the concepts of these disciplines have the ‘superset’ potential to embrace biology (e.g. the reductionist conjecture that biology is a department of physics; vectors and scalar fields impinge upon biochemistry via quantum theory, but the digestion system doesn’t impinge upon particle physics). Although I favor evolution, as an amateur I am unable to write off Berlinksi’s comments easily: I have constant doubts about the efficacy of evolution and these doubts revolve round the question of whether the ‘shufflings of happenstance’ are frenetic enough to ‘compute’ biological structures, in the time allotted to it.
Presumably a toxic mix of mathematicians, physicists and philosophers, has influenced me and this has set me up to succumb to weird ideas! I wonder how well this bunch of weirdoes would perform on Larry’s EXIT EXAM. Depends on who does the marking I suppose. I wonder who that would be? Or should ask who do you think SHOULD mark an exit exam?
Fact: among the elite mathematicians (National Academy of Science), 85 percent are either agnostics or atheists. (source: that study in Nature)
True, that is roughly the percentage of the other disciplines, but it does not imply that we are somehow the refuge of woos.
No, I am not an expert on evolution, and no, I will NOT shut up.
I argue thusly: biologists have, by the scientific method, discovered many true things (e. g., mapping the genome, vaccines, etc.) On the other hand, ID/Creationism has produced absolutely NOTHING of predictive value.
So, fellow non expert, who are you going to throw your lot with: the crackpots, or those have made tons of verified discoveries?
(and yes, I still read books written for the non-expert, such as Zimmer's book on evolution.)
Hi Ollie,
I would be interested in how the 85% breaks down into atheists and agnostics.
As I said, I favor evolution and believe it is very good theoretical framework for a postdictive and predictive (?) interpretation of data. On the other hand with ID, once a biological structure is claimed to be impossible to innovate via incremental assembly science hits an epistemological brick wall.
The fossil record seems to be an unequivocal testimony that life has changed over millions of years, although I continue to harbor some reservations about whether mutational processes ring the changes fast enough to bring about the changes we see in this record. Let me stress that this is only by way of reservation as I favor current theory. However, I think a certain amount of ‘scientific detachment’ helps prevent one getting trapped in a theoretical mire should the picture change.
I’m not going to throw my lot in unreservedly with any one, as too close an identification with a scientific subculture can, once again, make it difficult to extricate oneself from a theoretical net should things change. I don’t think the IDers are crackpots, but I don’t accept their position even though I am myself a theist.
Going after mathematician, David Berlinski, is another case of trying to kill the messenger, because you don’t like the message. If evolution is such a robust theory then every discipline of science should be affirming the evidence for naturalism’s favorite justification for its beliefs.
The ‘hard’ sciences, mathematics, physics, cosmology, etc. don’t have as much wiggle room for interpretation as the soft sciences, biology, biochemistry, etc.
I‘ve seen criticism at Sandwalk about the frequent use of probabilities. My understanding is that probabilities come from mathematicians and physicists, many of whom, if not most, are professional naturalistic scientists. They have taken evolution’s various timelines and tried to make them work (Because they want them to work!!!) within the framework of hard science reality. But, they don’t work.
Has anyone reading this ever seen a clear, reasonably up-to-date, rational representation of all the timelines of evolution together, coordinated with all the fields of science running parallel – anywhere? Please tell me where I can find it.
These kind of information is gradually working its way down to laymen like me, which makes me glad that naturalists are beginning to come out of the closet. It gives progressive creationists, amateurs like me and professionals, the opportunity to expose the growing scientific weakness of evolution theory and its philosophical groom, naturalism.
Dragon
Anon,
"They have taken evolution’s various timelines and tried to make them work (Because they want them to work!!!) within the framework of hard science reality. But, they don’t work."
Cite please.
Citation? Make my day Dragon, bring it on; I'm all ears.... at least I've got no reputation to loose!
No, Berlinski is no mathematician. He is a philosopher that if memory serves has studied the history of mathematics.
As an example, I had a run in with him on PT, when I just had been introduced to his existence.
And the charming fact that he made a charming lecture to professional mathematicians, as related by a commenter: But he recounts one incident in which he allegedly lectured some Hungarian mathematicians on elementary calculus and they were stunned by his insights. Yeah, right. Pompous to the nth degree. [Link to recount removed.]
Part of my then analysis was:
The mathematical treatment is reminding of the limit treatment. Berlinski, who seems careful when a point that suggest creationism is treated, states that differential equations on one side has “a variable denoting an unknown function; on the other, a description of the rate at which that unknown function is changing at every last moment down to the infinitesimal”. Leaving aside the fact that infinitesimals doesn’t need to be defined to solve such equations (they aren’t real numbers), of course both sides are rates here….
Berlinski finishes off this section with an old description of a “well-posed problem” in analysis as physically useful. The fact that the description is really about partial differential equations goes Berlinski by. Not only are ill-posed problems solvable, by regularization for example, but one of his referents, Thom, uses much more common ill-posed ordinary differential equations in his catastrophe theory. Heck, I’ve used them myself, favourable!
I also made some comments on his philosophical model of “the model for what science should be” modeled on Newton instead of more modern ideas of testable theories. Berlinski's reaction was only to name drop Hadamard (on well-posed problems) and Thom (on stability and Berlinski's visit at the Institut des Hautes Etudes).
but in favor of the mathematicians, physicists and philosophers one has admit that the concepts of these disciplines have the ‘superset’ potential to embrace biology
I don't think it is fruitful to conflate different disciplines as they have different methods and study different phenomena. As an analogy, even if all Turing complete languages has in principle the same algorithmic strength, their expressive power and tractability differs. We wouldn't use a Turing machine to simulate aerodynamics on, and we wouldn't use QM to explain fitness with.
Philosophy are the odd ones out, since it has no means to validate belief, except if science later proves them wrong and it is accepted. Mathematics can possibly be seen as quasi-empirical (Chaitin), but in many cases mathematicians, as well as some physicists, seems to entertain platonic ideals.
The disciplines can work fruitfully with biologists and vice versa, research and industry shows this. But it should be recognized that the theory of evolution has already two working mathematical models consistent with it and themselves, population genetics theory (alleles from bottom up) and quantitative genetics (alleles from top down) .
AFAIK computational constraints doesn't affect evolution rate, the maximum observed rates are consistent with the mentioned models. I.e. organisms are able to cope with the rate of change in the environment. (Which includes the populations themselves.)
[But interestingly, as Dawkins points out the genome is a repository of contingent information of what solutions was survivable in environments, with roots stretching back to earlier times. And that repository has in its contingent (historical) sense a potential maximum size in turn contingent on the evolved copying error rate. But AFAIU again we are nowhere near that, nor is it written in stone.]
Dragon:
Going after mathematician, David Berlinski,
Typical denialism. Despite references to Berlinski not being a professional mathematician, but a philosopher at best, you continue to mislabel this individual.
In any case, other disciplines have no effect on biology as evolution theory is consistent and verified.
I‘ve seen criticism at Sandwalk about the frequent use of probabilities. My understanding is that probabilities come from mathematicians and physicists, many of whom, if not most, are professional naturalistic scientists.
We don't criticize statistics, and specifically not its proficient use in biology. See the link to the two statistics models I gave above.
What we [disclosure: I'm a physicist] and others criticize creationists and other theologians basic mistake of using a priori probabilities when discussing a posteriori likelihoods, making it wrong. But more fundamentally, we criticize the misuse of irrelevant statistic reasoning of creationists when analyzing independently verified physics (cosmology) and biological (evolution) theories, making it not even wrong.
They have taken evolution’s various timelines and tried to make them work (Because they want them to work!!!) within the framework of hard science reality. But, they don’t work.
Other sciences are consistent with biological facts and theories. (Deep time, biological environment, et cetera.) If you don't believe so, give references to the specific science results that you feel disagree.
Has anyone reading this ever seen a clear, reasonably up-to-date, rational representation of all the timelines of evolution together, coordinated with all the fields of science running parallel – anywhere?
That type of comprehensive expository material isn't what scientists typically do as they are busy researching or explain their own research. But you can puzzle together it from such descriptions in textbooks, or why not the comprehensive article in Wikipedia as it (and its sub-articles) is updated and well referenced.
Tyler and Timothy, I had to take my grandson to school this morning. I'll be back-at-cha tomorrow morning; God willing and the creek don't rise.
Dragon
Yes Torbjorn, I agree; even if in principle biology can be reduced to physics (of course, it may be that it doesn’t) it is as impractical to incorporate biology into physics as it is to program a flight simulator in something as low level as Turing machine: hence the need for the higher level perspective of biologists.
I was very interested in your links – in particular the one on evolution speed limits and the maximum size of the genome – fascinating to think that the latter might have reached a rough maximum in Cambrian times! I am currently wondering how this fits in with my understanding of computational resources and complexity etc.
But get this: While I was on “Overcoming Bias” I read this about Gould – sounds pretty condemning! Doesn’t Larry call himself a Gouldian Pluralist? What does Larry think of this article I wonder? If the article is right (?) then I have to admit that Gould pulled the wool over my eyes. But then I’m only a member of the public!
PS To Dragon. I have a feeling God is willing. Looking forward to your references!
On the subject of Berlinski, allow me to crosspost the following from another venue:
I recently had a look at Berlinski's analysis of Kingsolver et al.
It left me mouth agape. The combination of arrogant condescension and Bozoine wrongitude in that post is just stunning. This guy (Berlinski, I mean) has the chutzpah to pass himself off as a mathematician? I am a mere ecologist, certainly no statistician, but my reading of Berlinski's dismissal of Kingsolver et al.'s instant classic suggests strongly that Berlinski:
a) doesn't understand the difference between correlation and regression;
b) doesn't understand the difference between a regression coefficient (slope) and a determination coefficient (conventionally r^2); and
c) has no freaking idea what he's talking about so authoritatively.
He sez:
"Kingsolver reported a median absolute value of 0.16 for linear selection...Thus an increase of one standard deviation in, say, beak finch length, could be expected to change fitness by only 16 percent in the case of linear selection... These figures are commonly understood to represent a very weak correlation. Thus if a change in the length of a beak’s finch by one standard deviation explains 16 percent of the change in the population’s fitness, 84 percent of the change is not explained by selection at all."
First (leaving aside the construction "beak finch length"), note that 0.16 is the median selection gradient for all of the 63 studies reviewed, many of which were straightforward in reporting that they detected no significant selection on the phenotypic trait measured, NOT the empirical selection gradient for finch beak size. But OK. Berlinski's initial interpretation of this number is correct: it represents the increase in relative fitness associated with a change in 1 standard deviation in the phenotypic trait. But:
1) this is a regression slope, a measure of the strength of selection, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the "weakness of the correlation." You can get a low slope for a strong correlation or a high slope with a weak correlation; two entirely different concepts.
worse,
2) to claim that this means that "a change in the length of a beak’s finch by one standard deviation explains 16 percent of the change in the population’s fitness" is plain stupid. It's a percent change, not a percent of the change! Spot the difference?
therefore,
3) the claim that "84 percent of the change is not explained by selection at all" is stupid squared. What a freakin dope.
As for this:
"Natural selection disappears as a biological force and reappears as a statistical artifact. The change is not trivial. It is one thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution; it is quite another thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of various regression correlations between quantitative characteristics. It hardly appears obvious that if natural selection is simply a matter of correlations established between quantitative traits, that Darwin’s theory has any content beyond the phenomenological, and in the most obvious sense, is no theory at all."
...as far as I can tell it makes no sense at all. The statistical correlation between phenotypic variation and reproductive success (in a given environment) IS the theory (actually half the theory; the other half is inheritance of the phenotypic variation). We can use statistical techniques to measure the evolutionary "force." This guy understands NOTHING about natural selection, but feels no shame about pompously holding forth on the subject.
He's an even bigger jackass than I thought previously...and I previously thought he was quite the jackass.
Tyler and Timothy asked me to “cite” why and how I support my contention that evolution’s various timelines … don’t work.
1. Macroscopic features in rock formations from South Africa and Australia dated older than 3.4 billion years. These fossilized layers indicate the presence of ‘complex’ microbial communities on early Earth.
2. Methane bubbles in rocks older than 3.4 billion years show the presence of biochemically ‘complex’ bacteria on early Earth.
3. Previous fossil and geochemical evidence indicate that life was present on Earth, possibly as early as 3.8 billion years ago.
Therefore, it is now known that metabolically ‘complex’ life appeared early on Earth. Evolution models require a later arrival on Earth through a long percolation time, up to a billion years - Age of Earth is 4.2 billion +/-. Prior to 3.8 billion years, the Earth was
completely and indisputably hostile to life.
Evolution requires a pre-biotic soup, for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence, except in the wishful thinking of naturalists. Herein then lies the ‘math’ and ‘probability’ issues that those in the hard/simple sciences struggle to reconcile with the predictions of those in the soft/complex sciences.
In my humble 'fan' view, the information I have cited does not fit a naturalistic scenario. It seemingly destroys the idea of Darwin's Tree of Life (a seed that grows into a tree and then 'gradually and slowly' branches from exceedingly 'simple' organisms into new, various and progressively more complex species) - a notion that continues to be published in biology text books and one that is promoted in the public domain as a realistic representation of how things came to be. In my view, a more accurate metaphor for origin evidence would be fire-works (Big Bang-like) with a broad array of complex life emerging exceedingly early and exploding at various other times, including the Cambrian explosion, and others.
In my view, the scientific information cited comports much better with a progressive creationist's view of origins than a naturalistic view. It also comports better, because it is consistent with Biblical references of related natural phenomena and recorded events.
I'll leave it up to you guys to tell me where my math is off, concerning the very early Earth and the verified emergence of life from a completely hostile environment in what appears to be a very un-evolutionary way and too short of a time period, naturalistically-speaking.
If you would like the journal references for the data I cited (most likely researched by naturalists), just let me know.
Dragon
"I'll leave it up to you guys to tell me where my math is off..."
Well, that would be difficult. There is no actual math in your post, let alone probability theory (which is a big part of my focus as a student of computer science and math). There is also the fact that your claims are completely unsourced, that you don't seem to distinguish between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cell life, and that your post is rife with logical fallacies (e.g., your argument from ignorance in saying that negative evidence "supports" a "progressive creationist" viewpoint). If you handed this in as a report at the undergrad level, you'd doubtlessly get an "F".
Tyler said… “your claims are completely unsourced,” “your argument from ignorance in saying that negative evidence "supports" a "progressive creationist" viewpoint.”
Dragon replies…
Here are the references:
“Hydrogen-based Carbon Fixation in the Earliest known Photosynththetic Organisms” Geology 34 (2006); “A New Window into Early Archaean Life: Microbial Mats in Earth’s Oldest Siliciclastic Tidal Deposits” Geology 34 (2006); “Stromatolite Reef from the Early Archaean Era of Australia” Nature 441 (2006); “Evidence from Fluid Inclusion for Microbial Methanogenesis in the Early Archaean Era” Nature 440 (2006).
Also, If you (Tyler) can’t see the probability problems presented by the evidence to a naturalistic point of view, then this amateur does not know what to do in the limits of a blog exchange.
Also, I am not saying “… that negative evidence ‘supports’ a ‘progressive creationist’ viewpoint.” I’m saying that the evidence supports one view over the other, creationism over evolution.
Last, I’m not at Sandwalk to get a grade. I’m here to learn how naturalists think.
Dragon
"Also, If you (Tyler) can’t see the probability problems presented by the evidence to a naturalistic point of view, then this amateur does not know what to do in the limits of a blog exchange."
This is what we call "handwaving". It's not up to me to do your work for you. If you can't articulate the problems in a probability theoretic framework then you are talking out of your ass when you bring "probability".
Also, I am not saying “… that negative evidence ‘supports’ a ‘progressive creationist’ viewpoint.” I’m saying that the evidence supports one view over the other, creationism over evolution."
Negative evidence doesn't "support" anything, that's the point. You provide no positve evidence for this "progressive creationism", whatever it is.
Thanks ‘Dragon’ for making that gallant effort. You seem to be arguing thus: Complex cellular mechanisms appeared ‘only’ 0.4 billion years after the Earth become a viable environment. Well, assuming this as given, then it seems that you are depending on me having a gut feeling for the chances here, which then enables me to say ‘this is impossible with evolutionary chances’. Trouble is I have to admit I have little intuition when comes to these kinds of time scales and just what feats of organization the jigglings of atoms can achieve in this time. So I’m back to square one. However, I suspect that trying to frame this issue with rigorous probabilities would be no mean task; either from the point of view of evolutionists who would want to show that complex structures have a viable probability, or from the point of view of IDers who would prefer to show that they are highly improbable. (In each case our physical regime would be a given). The big problem is, I think, that ‘morphospace’ is so ramifying and inhomogeneous in its possibilities that we have no idea how to do the ‘path integral’.
I myself favor standard evolution, although I do my best to not become too emotionally attached to it. My guess is (and it is only a guess) that non-linearities are at work in evolution. Take the classic case of the suggested evolution of the eye: once a crude retina is juxtaposed with a crude ‘object’ opening then these two features will modify in relation to one another in a kind of self-reinforcing positive feedback loop that leads to relatively rapid change. (that, by the way is just an illustrative example; I have no idea whether it is actually the case for the evolution of the eye) Hence there are stops and starts in evolution as it hits nonlinear regions in morphospace, when it produces feats of organization that are counterintuitive as non-linearity kicks in.
Like you, Dragon, I am a theist, but unlike you I suspect that young Larry would accuse me of being an insincere deist who wants the best of both worlds. I’m hoping that one day he will fall into the trap of accusing me of this so that I can get into a theological argument with him!
Just to help short cut my own research, Dragon, are you able to recommend any ID papers I could take a look at that calculate ‘no way’ odds for particular biological structures? I really need to get to grips with some of their work. I keep putting it off.
Wishing you God’s speed in all that you do. (I really enjoyed putting that on Larry’s atheist blog!)
Timothy,
I like your response. You are obviously not as amateur as I am. By the way, I do not consider myself an ID’er. I know who the Creator is and I see no reason to avoid calling him such. Therefore, while I read ID stuff often and find it helpful scientifically and apologetically, it is not what I rely on most. I am a big fan of Hugh Ross.
I believe that naturalists, skeptics, materialists, humanists, etc. either fail to realize that their worldview (the way they see life and their place in it) shapes the way they see science, or they simply won’t admit that they are human enough to allow such a thing to happen – while accusing many of their philosophical adversaries of possessing anti-science or perverted worldviews.
For a broad view, including “‘no way’ odds for particular biological structures,” I would recommend Ross’ “Creation as Science.” It offers the first testable model of cosmic and human origins, since Darwin’s model. It does this by presenting 89 testable predictions. For a more focused view that includes “biological structures,” I would recommend, “Who was Adam” by biochemist, Fazale Rana, a collaborator of Ross. Ross’ web site, www.reasons.org, offers frequent, specific and referenced biological information.
What I find so ironic is that the scientific references for the views expressed by Ross and Rana are virtually, if not literally, always authored by naturalists, skeptics, materialists, humanists and of course, evolutionists. It isn’t ID’ers or Creationists (putting aside young-Earhters) that are actually uncovering the data unfriendly to evolution theory; it’s the evolutionists themselves. Speaking of which, I can’t wait to see the hubbub at Sandwalk, when Anthony Flew’s new book comes out.
Also, I was not relying on you or anyone else having a “gut feeling” about the chances of evolution occurring in the time periods that have become shorter and shorter. The “gut feeling” should stimulate people to check the facts vs. their preferred view. I have found it very difficult to go into the detail necessary to make my points self-explanatory in a blog environment where caustic rhetoric seems to be the rule of the day, everyday. This is all deep stuff that whole fields of science and careers are based on. If someone really thinks I am wrong and they really look at the data, outside of their a priory views, it will speak for itself and it will point less and less to random, purposeless, irrational, chaotic accidents.
Good reading, Timothy.
Dragon.
Timothy Reeves said... "are you able to recommend any ID papers I could take a look at that calculate ‘no way’ odds for particular biological structures?"
Dragon replies... This is NOT ID, as you term it, but it may apply. Check out "
The Neanderthal-Human Soap Opera Continues, Posted by Fazale ‘Fuz’ Rana, Ph.D. at http://www.reasons.org/tnrtb/2007/11/08/the-neanderthal-human-soap-opera-continues/
Human DNA Contamination Explains Away Genetic Evidence for Human-Neanderthal Interbreeding
You love her
She loves him
He loves somebody else
You just can’t win
-J. Geils Band, Love Stinks
Dragon
Timothy, here's the end of the url. Sorry.
thal-human-soap-opera-continues/
Dragon
Timothy:
I was very interested in your links
My pleasure. I in turn thank you for pointing out Yudkowsky's followup, it and its comments add on the earlier material.
Btw, read Adam Ierymenko's comment at the end, he articulates the difference between a possible bound on complexity and system capability a lot better than I have elsewhere on this blog. (Or as Eliezer Yudkowsky would have it, an already attained equilibria, with improvements spawned by evolved improvements in error rates.)
On Gould, I think the comments balances Yudkowsky's as it looks one-sided post.
Dragon:
Tyler and Timothy asked me to “cite” why and how I support my contention that evolution’s various timelines … don’t work.
Well, I did too, and while Tyler and Timothy have already pointed out the lack of substance you deserve an answer from me.
But the problem is that you don't discuss "evolution's various timelines" at all. You are discussing (a few observations on) abiogenesis, and as you well know evolution as a theory is totally independent of that.
I’m here to learn how naturalists think.
That is commendable. The challenge of abiogenesis is fascinating by itself.
Then I will criticize your abiogenesis analysis and give you my own view.
First, on the data:
- It is true that the infimum maximum time (i.e. minimum available time) for abiogenesis as counted is something like 200 My. But the supremum maximum time is something or the order of 2 Gy to the LUCA, when evolution is assured to be the only remaining process of importance for later life. The Late Heavy Bombardment figure of 3.8 Ga is not a definitive limit, it merely means that the earlier traces of minerals seems to have been destroyed.
- Even if we have traces of more advanced biochemistry like photosynthesis et cetera it doesn't mean that they connect to the LUCA. Life may have started many times over, with different protobiont systems in series or parallel.
Second, on the theory:
- Without presenting a more detailed theory of abiogenesis it is impossible to model and predict the minimum time taken. So the data has of yet no bearing on any theory.
My own view of abiogenesis is that a short time between prebiotic chemistry and the first traces of protobionts means that life has high likelihood. The as of yet high possibility that life started, or started over, many times before coalescing to the genomic LUCA population(s) increases this likelihood.
But it doesn't really matter, considering that the universe contains so many stars, which are now known to contain many planets. Even a very small likelihood for life on a planet like Earth would easily sum up to the required likelihood of ~ 1 over the universe to be consistent with current observations.
To sum up, the data we have as of yet is consistent with abiogenesis, or awaits more detailed abiogenesis models.
The exciting prospect now is that observations of habitable earth-like planets are expected any time now based on current statistics. (Expected within 2 +/- 1 year, says the experts.) And observations of life-bearing planets will follow in the decades that comes, which will inform us about the conditions that generally leads to life. They will also give likelihoods and better data on minimum available times that helps constrain models.
as counted is something like 200 My
as counted from the Late Heavy Bombardment is something like 200 My.
Yes, I would love to get to the bottom of this Gould business, Tornjorn! Somebody commenting on the comments of Yudkowsky’s post says:
This post has generated some of the most passionate discussion yet on OB. This should be a warning sign: humans are especially prone to biases when it comes to closely cherished beliefs. Yet, I don't see a lot of hand wringing by either side about the possibility that the strongly held beliefs may be faulty.
I am sure there is a lesson here for Sandwalk! As Dragon complains: there is caustic rhetoric on this blog everyday! Some how a balance needs to be maintained between the emotions necessary to sustain a developer’s continued interest in a concept and a level of detachment that prevents those concepts becoming our masters, should they fail the test of experience.
Dragon:
I do have a couple of Hugh Ross’s earlier books, but I really need to update on the latest stuff, so thanks for your references. So many things to do and think about. My brain feels a bit like a pre-boitic soup; hope something emerges!
Anthony Flew: I think he is being accused of quasi-dementia (that is, of returning to a pre-biotic soup!)
If more evidence came to light supporting the kind of thing Torbjorn is talking about above I wouldn’t be surprised. Rather than see randomness as negative, I think of that old Jewish saying: “for the sake of a rose a field of thorns was spared”. That’s Amazing Grace for you.
Unfortunately, my emphasis on “detachment, detachment, detachment” (and positing God as a fruitful conjecture) gets me in to trouble with those Christains who confuse commitment with ‘high passion’. (But I’m sure a God of grace doesn’t). I might be accused of superstition on Larry’s blog, but at least I won’t get accused of blasphemy! Even belief in God can become so unreasonably partisan that it corrupts frank and candid thinking and justifies the comment above: humans are especially prone to biases when it comes to closely cherished beliefs
Human DNA Contamination Explains Away Genetic Evidence for Human-Neanderthal Interbreeding
I'm not sure how this applies to odds, and I'm not going to check the given link.
instead, on the latest research on Neandertals I would go to John Hawks' blog. (Who btw recommend the original German spelling, i.e. Neandertal.)
If there is too much DNA contamination in the already sequenced Neandertal genome isn't clear, and Hawks lists the many problems with such a hypothesis. So in no way is any specific evidence yet 'explained away'. (Terribly unscientific idea btw, observational evidence can be found to be in error, but never "explained away". The observations doesn't magically disappear.)
Meanwhile, scientists have started to study DNA in other specimens. And the material independently supports the hypothesis of gene introgression from interbreeding.
I recommend reading Hawks' Neandertal FAQ, as Hawks also describes a lot of independent phylogenetic support for interbreeding.
Sorry guys, but after reading most of these posts, . . I see a lot of people who know very little, . . saying a lot. Mathmatics is a science, and the reason most don't like to listen to what they have to say about evolution is because they already have their own minds made up on the subject, and really aren't interested in seeing any evidence at all that may contradict what they already personally believe. I have been studying the evolution concept for more years than most of you have been living, and find it very unpalatable, and if you really follow the "Scientific Method", then you would find that evolution is an unprovable theory with very little evidence at best, which has already been said by many very notable scientist. The more we study, the more complexity in life is found. In evolution, information must be gained, . . new information, but as is, the human genome is losing information every generation. It is breaking down, . deleterous mutations multiplying every generation causing so much sickness, disease, etc. Show me a 'real' beneficial mutation that stays in the host, . . the number will be just about zero.
I am a student of Mathematics at UC Berkeley.
I understand the guy in this video is not a mathematician.
Yet, I can testify that many mathematicians at UC Berkeley do not believe in the validity of evolution. And keep in mind that the mathematicians at UC Berkeley are among the world's finest. If they do believe that it might be valid (which most do), they certainly do not express this belief as an acceptance of a fact--like the scientific community does.
Reading through the comments on this blog, I can clearly see that the vast majority of you have extremely limited, if any, mathematical understanding. This is precisely one of the main reasons why mathematicians have such low regard for the scientific community and for scientific culture.
And since you decide to censor your blog comments, I will write you a letter here. You state "I wonder what he would say if a bunch of evolutionary biologists expressed skepticism about vector calculus and scaler fields? They sound like pretty crazy ideas to me." This comment and your attitude come harshly against dissidence in the academic community. As an evolutionist, you should understand that dissidence can only help the scientific community.
Post a Comment