Here's a link to a remarkable radio interview with Stephen Meyer and Doug Axe. The subject is the Royal Society meeting last November on New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives. The theme is not Intelligent Design Creationism, instead it's all about so-called problems with evolutionary theory. That's really what ID is all about in spite of what the IDiots may claim. [see A Royal Pain: Stephen Meyer and Douglas Axe on Five Problems for Evolution.]
Here are the five problems according to IDiots.- Fossil record (Cambrian explosion)
- The origin of information (no known natural source of information)
- The necessity of early mutations (you can't mutate regulatory genes that act early in development because all mutations in those genes are lethal)
- Epigenetic information (you can't evolve new body plans by mutating DNA because development is controlled by non-DNA epigenetic information)
- The universal design intuition that we all have (everybody thinks that people are created by a god-like designer, even atheists, so it must be true)
None of these criticisms were satisfactorily addressed at the Royal Society meeting, according to the dynamic duo, who were there. I was there too. It wasn't at all like these guys claim. Most of the talks were by people who don't understand modern evolutionary theory. They were part of the "old guard" who haven't kept up with changes in evolution but are convinced that they know enough to overthrow it. The new guard tried, unsuccessfully, to educate them.
None of the Intelligent Design Creationists at the meeting challenged any of the speakers or raised any of these issues. They preferred to fly under the radar.
This is what false news and pseudoscience sound like.
5 Royal Problems with MacroEvolution
129 comments :
I especially like number five. Theists believe that humans were made by god. Atheists, in spite of what they say, believe that we were made by god. Therefore, since both theists and atheists believe that we were made by god, it must be true. With logic as irrefutable as that, how could we possibly disagree.?
Larry, now that I have this image of the two of them in spandex and capes, how do I get it out of my head?
Why have we heard nothing about their own conference (the "University of Cambridge conference") the weekend after the RoySoc meeting?
The DI want to keep implying that they were somehow excluded from that meeting. As if any of them were actually leading researchers who had data or even meaningful discourse to contribute.
As somebody who was also at the RoySoc meeting, I can second Larry in noting that, despite copious opportunities and plenty of time for discussion, none of the dozen or so members of the DI who were present raised any questions or attempted to contribute to any discussion. If there was any "exclusion" going on it was self-imposed
All of these "problems" have been addressed and refuted by many scientists over the past twenty years but that doesn't stop the IDiots. They believe that by repeating falsehoods over and over again they become true.1
Really Larry? I think the main problem is what you mean by problems being addressed and refuted.
Here is a typical example of what you call when the problem is being addressed or refuted: "...just because science can't answer ...... problem, it doesn't mean it will not in the future..."
You can fill in the dotted line pretty much with any problem that any kind of materialistic theory has no proof for... I've already learned that some groups of people have no problem with lying to themselves. I still can't comprehend why.
Lately, I have learned that, not so much groups of people but more so certain individuals, have decided to deliberately mislead the public.
I'm not only appalled by such devious schemes. I'm beginning to question the mental health state of anybody who would even come up with such a falsehood...
"Here are the five problems according to IDiots.
Fossil record (Cambrian explosion)
The origin of information (no known natural source of information)
The necessity of early mutations (you can't mutate regulatory genes that act early in development because all mutations in those genes are lethal)
Epigenetic information (you can't evolve new body plans by mutating DNA because development is controlled by non-DNA epigenetic information)
The universal design intuition that we all have (everybody thinks that people are created by a god-like designer, even atheists, so it must be true)
All of these "problems" have been addressed and refuted by many scientists over the past twenty years but that doesn't stop the IDiots. They believe that by repeating falsehoods over and over again they become true.1"
What is the weakest of these 5 arguments? Can anyone support the claim that this argument has been refuted?
This atheist does NOT believe that people are created by a god-like designer.
They're all worthless arguments, and all have been refuted.
1)Cambrian explosion:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015/11/molecular-evidence-supports-evolution.html
2) Information:
http://reciprocity-giving-something-back.blogspot.com/2016/04/who-put-it-there-information-in-dna.html
3) Examples of non-lethal mutation in regulatory DNA sequences are discussed here:
http://dev.biologists.org/content/125/5/949.long
4) The claim that body plans arise independently of DNA is one you need to support. Please do so.
#5 is not even an argument. Only a true IDiot would find it persuasive.
Don Quixote: I have learned that, not so much groups of people but more so certain individuals, have decided to deliberately mislead the public.
The difference is, we've actually proven that ID proponents and creationists lied about scientific facts by reading their shit and looking up their references. There are countless examples, so many that Larry and others compiled them in a huge database, TalkOrigins.
For a recent example, Ann Gauger has been going around lying about how human and chimp DNA are just 92% similar, and Stephen Meyer called the actual figure-- 98.7%-- "Fake News". So you're not in a position to be accusing ANYBODY of deliberately misleading the public. That shit's deliberate.
And you worship shits like Meyer because they lie, Don. What's the correct percentage identity DNA between human and chimp, Don? Simple question. Prove to us that you have the "mental health" to disapprove of lies.
"Lately, I have learned that, not so much groups of people but more so certain individuals, have decided to deliberately mislead the public."
We're all grateful to people like Larry who expose such shenanigans.
"I'm not only appalled by such devious schemes. I'm beginning to question the mental health state of anybody who would even come up with such a falsehood..."
I question the mental health of somebody who not only claims that atheists believe that humans were created by a "god-like designer", but that this ludicrous notion is somehow proof for the god of choice of the person declaring this.
They're all terrible arguments, Bill, but #5 is redonkulous. They're throwing out the scientific method in favor of "intuition". That belongs next to a newspaper's horoscope. They wouldn't suggest replacing the scientific method if they were winning with that method.
Like our intuition of how things work in a population of 1 trillion bacteria on a billion-year time scale is going to be the best guide!
The "Cambrian explosion" one was argued at great length in this forum after Meyer's book "Darwin's Doubt" came out. Short answer: Meyer totally ignores the gradual increase in complexity of animal fossils in the pre-Cambrian and early Cambrian prior to the Cambrian 'explosion', thus he's got a big problem. He has no explanation for WHY fossils would gradually get more complex for tens of millions of years prior to the Cambrian 'explosion'. Since Meyer doesn't invoke his magic Designer to cause their gradual increase in complexity, we're left to assume that evolution can indeed make simple animals more complex. But then Meyer just tells us that all the pre-Cambrian animals just went extinct and have no genetic connection in any of the phyla of the Cambrian 'explosion.' Zero evidence for that, and much evidence against it. His only real argument for dismissing the whole pre-Cambrian is that Spriggina was once believed to be a simple trilobite, but now stuff like that are called rangeomorphs and we're not sure they're even animals. So one pre-Cambrian 'transitional', Spriggina, went out the window. Based on that one, Meyer exaggerates and says NO pre-Cambrian fossils are connected to Cambrian phyla, which is bullshit. Some of them certainly are ancestors of Cambrian phyla. Also, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, Meyer narrows the Cambrian explosion down to about 8 million years by taking an authority quote out of context to distort its meaning.
Then there's Meyer's ridiculous, bullshit argument that the Cambrian explosion was caused by the Intelligent Designer (identity unknown, but rhymes with Todd) creating tons of protein molecules de novo. Nobody thinks that caused animal complexity-- rather, anatomical complexity is caused by *non-coding* gene regulatory elements-- and Charles Marshall dinged Meyer on this pretty good in a debate with him on a religious radio show in the UK, pointing out that virtually no new proteins were required to build complex animal body plans. The 'magic proteins all appear at once, from nothing' argument has tons against it, for example, we know some of these proteins *must have pre-dated the Cambrian 'explosion'*, e.g. any protein shared by animals and fungi.
Another highly entertaining thing about Meyer and the Cambrian explosion is this (and it's even more amusing that it's not spotted by any of the enthusiastic 5-star reviewers of Darwin's Doubt).
None of those Cambrian animals resemble anything alive today. None of those taxa existed past the Ordovician, at best. So how did we get from them to the current fauna, if not by evolution?
So what if God created Pikaia? How did we get from Pikaia to the members of the Discovery Institute?
(I'm failing to resist the temptation to note that a worm-like creature without a distinct head end is little different to ----- oh, never mind.)
And then, of course, these same people who go all wobbly about the notion of their god creating the Cambrian critters will continue, with a perfectly straight face, to announce that there are no transitional fossils.
Don wrote:
"Here is a typical example of what you call when the problem is being addressed or refuted: "...just because science can't answer ...... problem, it doesn't mean it will not in the future...""
In the recent past claims like this came from clubs like DI and the ID crew. "We don't have proof for ID yet, but in the near future we will overthrow evolution as the leading theory for the diversity of life on this planet."
Science on the other hand works like this:
If experiments contradict current scientific theories a number of things can happen, none of which is "well we'll wait with adjusting this theory, perhaps in the future it'll be changed again".
So yeah Don, I agree with you:
"I'm not only appalled by such devious schemes. I'm beginning to question the mental health state of anybody who would even come up with such a falsehood..."
Yeah, sad isn't it, when groups of people in the past 20 years only can come up with repeatedly refuted nonsense and hope/ pray this time no one will notice they tried to rehash the same old garbage again. And again. And again. And again. Repeat ad nauseum.
Like your namesake Don, they attack a windmill, thinking it's a giant.
This other atheist doesn't think that we were designed by a god-like designer either.
"None of those Cambrian animals resemble anything alive today. None of those taxa existed past the Ordovician, at best. So how did we get from them to the current fauna, if not by evolution?"
You'll notice that they try really hard not to mention that tiny inconvenient detail.
Most creationists also think that all the current species arose during that "explosion." It's really that ridiculous.
"Fossil record (Cambrian explosion)"
The explosive aspect is due to the evolution of much more easily fossilized hard parts. ID/Creation would seem to me to put these hard parts back at the origin, instead of evolving. But maybe they mean the apparent existence at one time of phyla since extinct. Presumably the rigors of existence had been too much for the member species? The thing is, extinction is hard to explain as a sign of Intelligent Design. It's not like the Designers planned obsolescence so they could sell the new models, is it? If this is a problem for evolutionary science, it's a bigger problem for ID/Creationists.
"The origin of information (no known natural source of information)"
There are of course many issues in regards to the origin of life. Nonetheless, once life originated, DNA is indeed the natural source of information for cells, and new information arises on a regular basis. Polyploidy in plants can create a new species within just a few generations. Since ID/Creationism purports to address biological evolution, this claim borders on outright falsification.
As for the role of "information" in abiogenesis, if you allow eqivocation between that and evolutionary science, it seems to me that regularities are one form of information which arise regularly and naturally in chemical processes, starting with simple crystallization. Further, "information" is closely connected to changes in energy cause changes in a material record...which is suspiciously close to a definition of a chemical process. You need only omit "record," perhaps?
"The necessity of early mutations (you can't mutate regulatory genes that act early in development because all mutations in those genes are lethal)"
Of course these are issues. Given the evidence for evolution, the question is whether this difficulty has been proven imsuperable in principle, not just in current practice? Science is, I think (although I suspect I'm in a minority,) about how the world is. It's not about falsifying propositions. ID/Creationists can find gaps in models, but they, if they're scientists (by my eccentric lights,) need to find explanations for what is. The mountain of things they can't explain just keeps getting bigger and bigger.
"Epigenetic information (you can't evolve new body plans by mutating DNA because development is controlled by non-DNA epigenetic information)"
Epigenetic processes may alter the products of DNA sequences from what the original, pristine DNA would have. In effect, it would shield the DNA sequences from natural selection. That's only a problem for Richard Dawkins' selfish gene, which regards the genome as highly adaptive because of natural selection. The curious thing is evolutionary panadaptationism functions in many ways like Intelligent Design. The real problem epigenetics poses for panadaptationism, removing DNA sequences from direct selection, is also a problem for ID/Creationists: Explaining why the DNA sequences need processing in the first place, given the Intelligence of the Designer? But to be fair, in the popular mind, it is Dawkins' views that are deemed to be the scientific consensus.
"The universal design intuition that we all have (everybody thinks that people are created by a god-like designer, even atheists, so it must be true)"
The larger majority of people do believe in universal design. Many of course believe in Design by a person of some sort (aka God,) but many others believe natural selection has universally Designed all features of living organisms. The belief that a lot of chemical randomness (mutations) and historical randomness played a huge, huge role is not congenial to deep rooted beliefs that this is a just universe where everything is for a good reason. But this is ideology, the way you want the world to be, not the way it is, the province of science. (No, philosophy, religion and law do not concern themselves with the way the world is.)
Have several times asked creationists to provide examples of fossilized Cambrian rabbits, bumblebees, banana plants, giraffes, creationists, ,etc., all of which should exist if heir claim was correct. So far, the only response I have received is "La,la,la,la! Sorry, what? Did you say something? I can't hear you." But I remain optimistic. Perhaps Stephen Meyer (Is he Batman or Robin?) is working on a sequel to "Darwin's Doubt" where he again draws on his paleontological expertise to address this issue.
Hi Steve
"
The larger majority of people do believe in universal design. Many of course believe in Design by a person of some sort (aka God,) but many others believe natural selection has universally Designed all features of living organisms. The belief that a lot of chemical randomness (mutations) and historical randomness played a huge, huge role is not congenial to deep rooted beliefs that this is a just universe where everything is for a good reason. But this is ideology, the way you want the world to be, not the way it is, the province of science. (No, philosophy, religion and law do not concern themselves with the way the world is.)"
I think the best argument ID has made is around genetic information and how it arose not only at the origin but during the evolution of life. The current theories involve a trial and error process. I think this is a terrible explanation of how the new information leading to new body forms evolved.
"Perhaps Stephen Meyer (Is he Batman or Robin?)"
Or perhaps Dr. Strange. Check out the eirie resemblance to Benedict Cumberbatch.
When, in your estimation, was the idea that information in genomes can arise thru evolution refuted, Bill? Please provide a specific citation.
Do you still deny that genetic information has actually been observed to arise thru evolutionary processes under laboratory conditions? One example is given below:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121022145340.htm
Please explain how this experiment did not involve the generation of new information. An actual answer to this question, rather than your usual tactic of ignoring the question or attempting to change the subject, would be greatly appreciated.
We still await the demonstration of such information being created by an intelligent being that existed prior to that of DNA. Or has that observation been made, and I've missed it? If so, again, please provide the citation.
Is there a reason you have yet to address the points made re: creationists' misuse and misunderstanding of the concept of "information" in the article below?
http://reciprocity-giving-something-back.blogspot.com/2016/04/who-put-it-there-information-in-dna.html
LS
"When, in your estimation, was the idea that information in genomes can arise thru evolution refuted, Bill? Please provide a specific citation."
I think claims are rarely refuted. There are arguments on both sides. I think the existence of very complex micro machines in the cell that are constructive from long DNA sequences are not likely made by trial and error processes.
There is no experimental evidence to support that a trial and error process can build these machines.
There is experimental evidence that supports the ID claim that these machines are most likely not formed from trial and error processes.
I think the ID guys like Axe and Meyers understand the information argument very well.
I think claims are rarely refuted. There are arguments on both sides. I think the existence of very complex micro machines in the cell that are constructive from long DNA sequences are not likely made by trial and error processes.
Is this the new favorite ID Creationist argument? "If I think something is true, then it is true"? At one point, almost everyone in the world believed the sun orbited the earth. And today, even comitted heliocentrists speak of the sun "rising" and "setting". Do you think this means geocentrism is true?
There is no experimental evidence to support that a trial and error process can build these machines.
Yes, there is. I just gave you some of it.
There is experimental evidence that supports the ID claim that these machines are most likely not formed from trial and error processes.
So, again, why don't you cite some of this "evidence"? Remember, the ID Creationist position is that these "machines" were produced by an intelligent being that did not itself arise from the processes that produced life on earth. That must be its position, or ID Creationism is self-contradictory. So, please, provide the citation in which these biological "machines" were observed being created by an intelligent being whose existence did not depend on the prior existence of these very machines? Please don't avoid this question again. Thanks in advance.
I think the ID guys like Axe and Meyers understand the information argument very well.
Again with the "I think". Well, your claim is demonstrably wrong, as explained in that article I have linked for you, and which you continue to ignore.
LS
"There is no experimental evidence to support that a trial and error process can build these machines.
Yes, there is. I just gave you some of it."
What complex micro machine complex was built in these experiments?
"
So, again, why don't you cite some of this "evidence"? Remember, the ID Creationist position is that these "machines" were produced by an intelligent being that did not itself arise from the processes that produced life on earth."
You still don't understand the ID argument. You are not alone here.
What complex micro machine complex was built in these experiments?
Which "complex micromachines" have been observed being built by intelligent beings who themselves possess none of these "complex micromacnines" themselves? If you refuse, or are unable, to answer the question, you are a hypocrite.
You still don't understand the ID argument. You are not alone here.
Let's say I don't. What am I getting wrong? Do ID creationists believe that these "micromachines" were built by human beings? If not, then I don't see what I'm misconstruing.
As a high school biology teacher in PA, I actively highlight the inconsistency and lack of evidence presented by IDiots such as Stephen Meyer and David Klinghoffer. I have found that when such stupidity is presented in line with the scientific evidence, most students are amazed that anti-evolutionists have yet to go extinct.
In addition, I am including those students who acknowledge the preponderance of evidence, but go on to apologize by saying "I am sorry, but I was raised to believe this way."
As with most things religious...
a little light + an ounce of scrutiny --> those willing to convert to science + those who have no alternative but to lie and deceive.
Cheers Larry! Keep up the wonderful work.
LS
"Let's say I don't. What am I getting wrong? Do ID creationists believe that these "micromachines" were built by human beings? If not, then I don't see what I'm misconstruing."
The argument is about evidence of design. The identity of the designer is not part of the argument.
As far as the micro machines like the flagellum the ID argument is they are evidence of design.
TE
"As a high school biology teacher in PA, I actively highlight the inconsistency and lack of evidence presented by IDiots such as Stephen Meyer and David Klinghoffer. I have found that when such stupidity is presented in line with the scientific evidence, most students are amazed that anti-evolutionists have yet to go extinct. "
Do you have examples of the arguments by Meyer and how you highlighted the inconsistency?
The argument is about evidence of design. The identity of the designer is not part of the argument.
Thanks for confirming that I understand the ID Creationist "argument" perfectly. And also for demonstrating the hypocrisy of your position. If someone responded to your question regarding, e.g., how mutations can produce new information by just saying "That's not part of the argument", I doubt you would accept that.
Besides which, how can the identity of the "Designer" not be part of the ID argument? If NASA sent a probe to Mars and found a laptop computer there, would you be satisfied if they just said, "Yeah, the laptop was designed. We don't care who or what designed it, and how it got there. We just know it was designed.", would you be satisfied with that? To be clear, that is not part of my argument against design. It's just further evidence of the intellectual bankruptcy of the ID movement. It's only interested in generating religious propaganda. The pursuit of scientific knowledge is nowhere on the agenda.
As far as the micro machines like the flagellum the ID argument is they are evidence of design.
Really? You have an example of a bacterial flagellum actually being designed by an intelligent being? Well, please, share this with us. I hope this isn't just another example where you claim to have scientific evidence for something, but refuse to divulge it. You have quite a habit of that. I'm beginning to suspect none of this evidence actually exists, and you're just making stuff up.
Bill, could you please show us where Meyer answered the five arguments against the main points of his book that Larry made in the post below?
IDiot book by Stephen Meyer can't be refuted by scientists
As always, thanks in advance for you anticipated cooperation.
LS
"Thanks for confirming that I understand the ID Creationist "argument" perfectly. And also for demonstrating the hypocrisy of your position. If someone responded to your question regarding, e.g., how mutations can produce new information by just saying "That's not part of the argument", I doubt you would accept that."
We don't have evidence that trial and error can create long functional sequences. We do have evidence that intelligent agents can. Now it is fair saying that the intelligent design argument is limited but design does have more explanatory power than trial and error process when you require sequences that build complex body plans.
The flagellum motor has similar features to a human design, an outboard motor. It has rotor, stator, u joint and propeller like components. It can be built from a DNA sequence every time a bacteria divides. This appears to be the product of an intentional design vs. a trial and error process.
There are also mechanisms inside cells that follow design concepts.
A specific example, Bill. Here is a summary of one of Meyer's arguments, as paraphrased by Larry:
1) There are no obvious precursors to the Cambrian animals in the fossil record.
2) Scientists looked to molecular data to test various hypotheses; namely, whether there was rapid radiation or whether the explosion might be an artifact of the fossil record.
3) The molecular evidence shows deep divergence, indicating that there are probably missing precursors to the existing Cambrian fossils.
4) The molecular evidence must be rejected because there are missing fossils.
Do you think that is a valid argument, Bill? Why or why not? If you do not think it is a valid argument, did Larry misrepresent Meyer's position? If that's your accusation, you should provide specific quotations from Meyer's book that indicate this.
Terminus Est,
"As a high school biology teacher in PA, I actively highlight the inconsistency and lack of evidence presented by IDiots such as Stephen Meyer and David Klinghoffer"
Do you also actively explain things like the function of replication enzymes? What would you offer your students as an evolutionary explanation for how such enzymes evolved?
Number 5 is a great point. it means intelligent universal historical mankind looked at the complexity of nature and concluded a fantastic thinking being created it. Simple conclusion.
That chance, evolution included, is the origin, seems impossible. not just wrong.
A long way must be traveled intellectually to overcome the design inference in mankind. Especially thoughtful mankind less sevile to claimed leaders in authority.
On the first point.
"The design of life" Dembski/Wells makes a great point(s) how the fossil record is not a biological recod for ideas on evolution to be made. In the cAmbrian explosion thing ID also use the fossil record to debunk the evolution ideas on biology/timelines/complexity.
So there is a problem using the cAmbrian fossils but if evolutionists are using them then its a great point, famous now, fopr demonstrating evolution fails the test on its own test.
Fossils are not biological evidence for processes or happenings. its just human dot connecting. a weirdly enduring error in evo bio.
If you are referring to the function of DNA polymerase, topoisomerase and helicase...then yes. As for how they evolved, I emphasize how they are conserved. Other than that, I don't claim to know exactly how they evolved - but that is not my job, is it?
The really cool thing about science is we don't know everything (and that is part of what I teach)! In fact, we are constantly reminded in science that our understanding is not linear...but where science always triumphs over religion is its insistence on following the evidence (gawd did it is never good enough). I point out the logical fallacies of anti-evolution claims and many students - unprompted - come to the same conclusion. I NEVER need to do this - you Fundies do all the work! Many thanks. Cheers.
bioteacher,
“As for how they evolved, I emphasize how they are conserved. Other than that, I don't claim to know exactly how they evolved - but that is not my job, is it?”
But you do teach your students that replication enzymes definitely evolved, even though you can’t imagine how that could happen, right?
-
“I point out the logical fallacies of anti-evolution claims and many students - unprompted - come to the same conclusion.”
I’m sure they do, but not exactly unprompted. When you’re immersed in a culture whereby you are taught to not think, you learn to not ask questions that might prompt you to think.
When I was in the ninth grade, I asked my biology teacher how rattlesnakes could wind up with poison and fangs without knowing anything about their prey animals. It was a simple and naive inquiry, but he didn’t have an answer, and neither would you. That was a long time ago, and your chore is much easier now. You, and your students, will probably die in your peculiar faith without ever having had an original thought in your entire life. Cheers to you as well.
@Bill Cole,
For my students, I do provide examples (they truly care). And, for you, I could do so as well...but you really aren't interested in evidence-based claims, are you?
On the off chance that you were serious, I could also reference several textbooks (Campbell, Hillis, etc.) and countless scientific articles, including many of the awesome posts by Larry Moran to help you out.
Based on your posts, I suspect it would be useless...therefore, I won't waste any more of my time with you.
Lutesuite said: 'Is this the new favorite ID Creationist argument? "If I think something is true, then it is true"? '
That is the argument in Axe's new book. Personal intuition trumps scientific investigation.
"The flagellum motor has similar features to a human design, an outboard motor. It has rotor, stator, u joint and propeller like components."
This is how it is drawn in popular accounts, to explain how it works by analogies to human-created machinery.
It's like explaining how atomic valences are like little hands reaching out and grabbing on to other molecules ---- molecules don't really have human-like hands.
"Fossils are not biological evidence for processes or happenings."
Then why does Meyer claim that the Cambrian fossils are evidence for ID?
Bill Cole:"I think the existence of very complex micro machines in the cell that are constructive from long DNA sequences are not likely made by trial and error processes."
What justifies you thinking this? All you have is an assertion. You've been asked to explain why, many times, but you've never been able to give any other reason than your personal intuition that it somehow seems unlikely to you. Bill, you intuitions don't dictate what can or can't happen.
Sure they can! Creationist researcher Doug Axe wrote a whole book on how intuition is sufficient to determine what is true in science. No doubt he supported that contention with nothing but intuition, otherwise he would have written a book that was nothing but a lengthy self-contradiction, and only an IDiot would do something like that.
Christine Marie Janis,
"This is how it is drawn in popular accounts, to explain how it works by analogies to human-created machinery."
The flagellum motor is not a comparative analogy. It is an actual, proton-driven motor with the parts Bill noted and several others.
BC/txpiper:
In my mind, and this is what I try to convey to my students, science:
a) is a way of observing the world around us; acknowledging the biases we were raised with, the experiences that shaped us; while taking into account that our perceptions are not necessarily reality (our brains are constantly being deceived, and our senses should never be trusted without the support of multiple lines of evidence).
b) cannot use supernatural means as an explanation. There are rules to how things work - some we know pretty darn well, some we know in part, and some rules we don't even know exist yet. In any case, we can only operate (observe, hypothesis, theorize) using the rules we are aware of.
c) when the evidence supports it, will challenge any existing paradigm. There is no authority beyond its reach - and that includes your religion, your personal views, etc.
Therefore, if encouraging my students to think in this manner is "prompting" them...I wonder what you would call your typical Sunday sermon or bible-study class, where challenging the text or the Author is considered blasphemy?
Hopefully, I will "die in my particular faith" having had MANY original thoughts throughout my entire life.
I don't think the same can be said for true-believers - that is, those who would agree with the following statement:
"There is no evidence that could ever change my mind." If nothing could change your mind, then you are not practicing science. And, that is why religious explanations continue to fail at explaining anything about the world we live in...whereas science continues to progress, increase our understanding of how things work and make reliable predictions about the future.
Cool Tx, so are you finally going to give proof in favor of ID?? Can you explain using ID why there are so many different flagella? Why some bacteria have one, others many, some none? This should be easy peasy for you.
Hey Tx:
"When I was in the ninth grade, I asked my biology teacher how rattlesnakes could wind up with poison and fangs without knowing anything about their prey animals. It was a simple and naive inquiry, but he didn’t have an answer, and neither would you."
I wouldn't either, I'd be stunned by the sheer stupidity of this question. Know it's prey??? To grow fangs and venom??? How can it be the rabbits people introduced into Australia grew to be such pests? Because the snakes didn't know it's prey? LOL!
@txpiper,
If you had asked me
"how rattlesnakes could wind up with poison and fangs without knowing anything about their prey animals?"
I would probably have said, "That's a great question txpiper! I don't know. But let's take a look at what the science suggests and see if we can figure it out.
Together, we would have read this article:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/07/080730-snake-fang.html
cross-referenced it with this study:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925477308000853
as well as this live science paper:
http://www.livescience.com/7551-snakes-fangs.html
We would probably look up snake anatomy of venomous vs. non-venomous species; examine snake development in the egg, and compare it to other reptiles, and discuss.
We would certainly not reference the bible to see what it says about snakes!! LOL!!
@Diogenes, not that it matters mind you as 92% or 98.7% doesn't change the conclusion that we are extremely similar. A comparison of the entire genome for both Chimps and Humans indicates that segments of DNA that are duplications, deletions, and etc. This adds an additional 5%.
Ed,
“I wouldn't either, I'd be stunned by the sheer stupidity of this question.”
If only you could be stunned into curiosity. You have been inculcated to believe that things like fangs and venom (just for starters in this case) were slowly and carefully crafted by natural selection, the ultimate inventor. But venom, and venom synthesis, management and delivery systems, are extremely complex:
“Rattlesnake venom is a mixture of five to 15 enzymes, various metal ions, biogenic amines, lipids, free amino acids, proteins, and polypeptides. It contains components designed to immobilize and disable the prey, as well as digestive enzymes which break down tissue to prepare for later ingestion.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rattlesnake#Venom
There isn’t any point in noticing any of the other exceptional features and subsystems. I don’t expect you to actually consider, much less explain, how complicated arrangements like this developed accidentally, or how animals that depend on such systems could survive while the selection fairy was busy integrating the components. But if you really strain your intellect, perhaps you might be able to comprehend why real scientists like Pasteur and Boyle would not entertain such fairy tales.
===
bioteacher,
“I would probably have said…let's take a look at what the science suggests and see if we can figure it out.”
I’m sure. But you wouldn’t point out that none of the scriptures you’d review with your students bother to mention naturally selected DNA replication errors, the centerpiece of the theory you are teaching them.
Sufficient credulity has to be cultivated in people for them to believe, as you do, that billions of miraculous accidents created everything. Until that is accomplished, it’s better to just say, like your articles do, that things evolve or develop.
"We would certainly not reference the bible to see what it says about snakes!! LOL!!"
I propose that snakes had to evolve venom because they lost the ability to grab prey with their forelimbs, post Eden banishment.
MRR
"
What justifies you thinking this? All you have is an assertion. You've been asked to explain why, many times, but you've never been able to give any other reason than your personal intuition that it somehow seems unlikely to you. Bill, you intuitions don't dictate what can or can't happen."
Intuition can be translated to the ability to spot design, at least human design. I don't know of an object in nature that can translate sequential code into function that is not a human design or living.
Inferences are made from observation and human judgement.
Additionally the papers that you and I have discussed from Szostak to Axe that show protein function is rare in sequence space. This makes a trial and error process very unlikely to be the mechanism.
"There isn’t any point in noticing any of the other exceptional features and subsystems. I don’t expect you to actually consider, much less explain, how complicated arrangements like this developed accidentally,"
There's a lot of debate right now (and I'm not sure what the current state of play is) about whether the bite of the Komodo dragon is actually venomous, or whether the prey is "poisoned" by the bacteria in the mouth of the lizard that get "injected" via the biting teeth.
All bites are potentially venomous for this reason. And, given that salivary glands (which venomous glands are modified from) already produce a cocktail of chemicals, it seems fairly obvious how such a system could evolve slowly.
No venom: prey takes 20 minutes to die.
A little bit of venom: Prey takes 19 minutes to die. And so on.
Only some snakes are venomous, of course, and I think that the current understanding is that venom evolved independently in several different coloubrid lineages, but I'd have to look that up. The point is that there are probably lots of extant "intermediate conditions" that could be examined.
Some mammals also have a venomous bite. It seems quite a common thing to have evolved.
And, please don't take the use of the word "designed" by the Wikipedia author to mean they support divine intervention. I work hard to expunge that word (which originally merely meant "functionally adapted") from my writings, because of this silly behavior by creationists.
Intuition can be translated to the ability to spot design, at least human design. I don't know of an object in nature that can translate sequential code into function that is not a human design or living.
So the DNA/RNA system was designed by a human or some other living thing? That must mean you have examples of humans or other living things that do not require the DNA/RNA system. Please provide them.
Additionally the papers that you and I have discussed from Szostak to Axe that show protein function is rare in sequence space. This makes a trial and error process very unlikely to be the mechanism.
No, it just means functional proteins would not arise very frequently, which is what we observe. Nonetheless, examples of functional proteins arising thru random mutations abound, as you are well aware. Did you just forget this?
That's not Meyer's argument. You mean we don't only have to educate you about evolution, Joe, but we have to teach you what your fellow creationists say, as well?
Tx, I bet you didn't notice, but this is another one of your claims equating to "evolution can't do this, thus goddidit". Another claim, *your* claim, no evidence and that seems to suffice... Interesting behavior.
Now, perhaps you could explain why we find snakes without venom. And also snakes all over the world with various forms of venom, ranging from virtually non-toxic to lethal for humans. Some of these venoms are neurotoxic, some break down red blood cells?
Also please explain why we find for example spiders, scorpions, octopus, many insects, fish and even mammals with venom? Seems to me, venom is rather common.
And yet, you have creatures which use venom as offensive weapon (to eat), but also many creatures use it in a defensive manor (to prevent to be eaten).
So yeah, asking a teacher how a snake knows it's prey, thus it can develop venom is incredibly stupid.
But hey, you also claim "I do tend to ignore selection, because it is not a biological process. Less fit specimens just die, and and are deleted from the gene pool."
Ed, ID is not anti-evolution. And tell me how to test the claim that snakes are the product of natural selection, drift and CNE? I bet you won't even try and that alone should tell you something about your position
"Ed, ID is not anti-evolution"
It isn't??????? Yeah right.
Yes it is Meyer's argument- start on page 353 of "Darwin's Doubt"
It isn't, Ed. ID is OK with a change in allele frequency over time, ie evolution. ID is OK with descent with modification, ie evolution.
ID is anti- blind watchmaker evolution, Ed. You do realize that the word "evolution" has several meanings and to show that ID is anti-evolution you have to show it goes against all of them? You can't do that, Ed.
Read it for yourself:
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/intelligent-design-is-not-anti-evolution-2/
Larry Moran showed up but in typical fashion he didn't address the argument
Why would I read a book by a proven liar and ignoramus?
You wrote a book? I would never read a book by you, a proven liar, coward and ignoramus.
TE
"c) when the evidence supports it, will challenge any existing paradigm. There is no authority beyond its reach - and that includes your religion, your personal views, etc.
Therefore, if encouraging my students to think in this manner is "prompting" them...I wonder what you would call your typical Sunday sermon or bible-study class, where challenging the text or the Author is considered blasphemy?"
Do you believe that trial and error process explains how life formed on earth from a single cell?
If there is contradictory evidence of this claim would you share it with your students?
Do you realize the universal common descent is an untested theory? Do your students realize this?
bioteacher
"For my students, I do provide examples (they truly care). And, for you, I could do so as well...but you really aren't interested in evidence-based claims, are you? "
I am very interested in evidence based claims. You have failed to make any.
I was reading an article about the shifting ethic composition of the Central District in Seattle, and they had a link to an architectural firm that had built four townhouses where an African-American church used to stand. Idly following the link, I arrived at the firm's webpage and was astonished to find their slogan:
"The most compelling argument for intelligent design"
Which it may well be.
Christine Marie Janis
Your right. There is a bigger problem for ID thinkers in using the cambrian explosion.
As i said the only way out is to insist fossils are not biological evidence for any other fossils relationship between them.
HOWEVER if evolutionists are using the fossil record tHEN iD thinkers can use that record to confound them as they do with the Cambrian explosion.
Bill wrote,
"Do you believe that trial and error process explains how life formed on earth from a single cell?"
this is a claim based on the "evolution can't do this, thus goddidit" mantra. Perhaps instead of this claim, why don't you show me evidence in favor of ID? Do you want to give it a try? Or can we expect a non-answer, which is in fact the standard response every ID supporter gives when I ask this question.
Joe, I've explained this to many ID creationists on this blog, and I'll explain it to you too.
"ID is anti- blind watchmaker evolution, Ed."
Nice to know, but you'll need to explain what "anti- blind watchmaker evolution" is first, Joe. If by "anti- blind watchmaker evolution" you mean "evolution can'do this, thus goddidit", you're attacking something which isn't there. Like Don Quixote, you're attacking a windmill ("anti- blind watchmaker evolution"), while thinking you're attacking a giant. I've explained this fact to many ID creationists on this blog, but they keep on attacking the windmill. And the windmill isn't what's being studied in hundreds/ thousands of labs on this planet.
"You do realize that the word "evolution" has several meanings and to show that ID is anti-evolution you have to show it goes against all of them? You can't do that, Ed."
Evolution has several meanings? Does it now? Do tell, because I can only find one meaning.
And it's up to ID to show positive evidence in favor of ID. Up until now, the ID crew can only come up with variations of claims which revolve around the "evolution can't do this, thus goddidit" mantra. When will we see positive evidence in favor of ID? Will you be the one Joe to provide it?
Bill wrote,
"Do you believe that trial and error process explains how life formed on earth from a single cell?"
this is a claim based on the "evolution can't do this, thus goddidit" mantra. Perhaps instead of this claim, why don't you show me evidence in favor of ID?
Bill's "evidence" for ID is that people design machines. True story, I'm not making that up.
Hi Bill -
The fifth, as people have said, isn't a scientific argument at all. I don't have a "design intuition," so I guess this refutes the fifth notion all by itself.
But on a scientific basis, though it is difficult to pick one from the "parade of horribles," I would take #2. There is in fact a good scientific definition of information that requires no outside agency to provide it, and has in fact contributed to our knowledge of the behavior of everything from relativity to black holes.
However, precisely because it does not require an outside agency, ID folk willfully blind themselves to its existence so they can shout about scientists having no way to "get information into" the biochemical building blocks of life. No need to "get information into" them, they've already got it by the perfectly valid scientific definition, which has been proved by experiment.
judmarc,
"There is in fact a good scientific definition of information that requires no outside agency..."
Can you summarize it, or provide a link to this definition?
Hi Tx -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
Shannon or Kolmogorov information are both only mathematical calculations in researces mind and papier. They have not any connection on nature and physical or psychological happenings. They do not affect on nature or tell nothing about nature unlike physical laws. They influence not on things. Opposition allowed.
A creationist demanding a definition of "information" from someone who accepts evolution? I doubt many Irony Meters survived that one.
Shannon or Kolmogorov information are both only mathematical calculations in researces mind and papier. They have not any connection on nature and physical or psychological happenings.
Only to the same extent that, if I measure your height in inches, that also has no connection to anything in nature. Do believe that to be the case?
Judmarc
"But on a scientific basis, though it is difficult to pick one from the "parade of horribles," I would take #2. There is in fact a good scientific definition of information that requires no outside agency to provide it, and has in fact contributed to our knowledge of the behavior of everything from relativity to black holes.
However, precisely because it does not require an outside agency, ID folk willfully blind themselves to its existence so they can shout about scientists having no way to "get information into" the biochemical building blocks of life. No need to "get information into" them, they've already got it by the perfectly valid scientific definition, which has been proved by experiment."
Its funny, I think this is their best argument and fundamental to the ID concept.
The no way to get information into the building blocks is indeed a flawed argument, however trying to figure out how a trial and error process built a bacterial flagellum or a spliceosome with hundreds of thousands of nucleotides that must become organized to build these machines is a nightmare for any modern evolutionary mechanism except Shapiro's NGE which is still very hypothetical.
Ed
"
this is a claim based on the "evolution can't do this, thus goddidit" mantra. Perhaps instead of this claim, why don't you show me evidence in favor of ID? Do you want to give it a try? Or can we expect a non-answer, which is in fact the standard response every ID supporter gives when I ask this question."
For the argument at hand lets just go with evolution is unlikely the result of blind and unguided process which is opposed to what is being taught at the moment.
"IDiots" hold that their view is a kind of theory, not a religion based
dogma. What is characteristic for their view is teleology, which can
also be found in old philosophies. Aristotle was a believer in this
idea. But also the creationists’ view is teleological. And it does not
stop there. Among scientists from the last fifty years we find Ernst
Mayr, Lynn Margulis and Richard Dawkins. I have discussed this in my new
blog, in this blog post. Please comment there.
LS
"Bill's "evidence" for ID is that people design machines. True story, I'm not making that up."
You continue to make straw-man arguments and confuse yourself. Again , you are not alone here.
Well, then, correct me, Bill. What is the evidence you have the assertion that "micromachines" could only be produced by intelligence?
Also when you write this:
Do you realize the universal common descent is an untested theory?
...are you lying, or just ignorant?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html
Some scientists propably think that information has an effect on all happenings. Is the thing in question really information or some unknown factor?
"information creates the cosmos"
judmarc,
I’m familiar with the Wikipedia entry on Information Theory, but that is about, as the article notes, “the quantification, storage, and communication of information”, and presupposes information as a commodity of sorts. I reviewed it again, and didn’t find “a good scientific definition of information that requires no outside agency”.
Perhaps you meant to link to the article just about Information. It does provide a definition:
“Information is that which informs. In other words, it is the answer to a question of some kind.”
I can easily agree with that, but you probably won’t. I think questions and answers would probably be untidy in your definition. Can you express it in your own words?
Lutesuite,
Whenever anyone cites that paper to him, Bill asks irrelevant questions for a while and then resets to never having heard of it. Been done dozens of times.
This is one of the best articles I know on "information" and how creationists understand and misuse the term. I've already linked it to your fellow creationist Bill Cole, and he's doing his best to pretend it doesn't exist. You now have the opportunity to do the same, txpiper:
http://reciprocity-giving-something-back.blogspot.ca/2016/04/who-put-it-there-information-in-dna.html
Ah. So lying it is.
Yeah, I read that last time you posted it. It is just trying to sweep reality under the rug. They don't call them codons for nothing.
lutesuite
So if you think citing a paper that makes the assumption that undirected processes as a mechanism are an a-priori assumption is testing, then I yield.
How would you test that a trial and error process could produce a spliceosome? A nuclear pore complex? Chromosome structure?
The paper you and John have cited falls a hair short.
John
"Whenever anyone cites that paper to him, Bill asks irrelevant questions for a while and then resets to never having heard of it. Been done dozens of times."
The questions are to try to understand if the paper supports your claims. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. You were called on the carpet at TSZ for citing this paper.
Don't try shift the goalposts, Bill. Your claim was, and I quote, "universal common descent is an untested theory." Are you really going to continue to hold to that claim in the face of evidence that clearly refutes it?
You were called on the carpet at TSZ for citing this paper.
I'd like to see where you think this happened. My guess is that you and a bunch of your fellow IDiots just yammered ignorantly about the paper.
"I reviewed it again, and didn’t find 'a good scientific definition of information that requires no outside agency.'"
Doesn't the Good Book have something about "none so blind as those who will not see"?
Black hole entropy works in accordance with information theory. So does quantum entanglement, which could violate relativity under Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen conditions except that no *information* is passed faster than light. These all come from the rigorous scientific definition of "information" in Claude Shannon's seminal 1948 paper, cited and discussed in the Wikipedia article I linked.
The definition is rather mathematical. It answers the question asked in Section 6 of Shannon's paper: "Can we define a quantity which will measure, in some sense, how much information is 'produced' by such a process, or better, at what rate information is produced?"
Information is defined quite literally with mathematical precision twice, once for a noiseless channel, once for a noisy channel. The definition appears as "The Fundamental Theorem for a Noiseless Channel" in Section 9, and as "The Fundamental Theorem for a Discrete Channel with Noise" in Section 13.
These theorems have now as I said been used in any number of scientific fields, including, as mentioned in Wikipedia, "the evolution and function of molecular codes."
Happy reading and understanding!
"You were called on the carpet at TSZ for citing this paper."
You mean the site that has as its masthead, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken"?
I have a feeling John may have caused Christ (or at least the vision of him held by folks frequenting TSZ) some indigestion.
Yeah, I read that last time you posted it. It is just trying to sweep reality under the rug. They don't call them codons for nothing.
So do you believe there is no information contained in dog shit? Or do you think the information that it contains was personally put there by Baby Jesus, with his own hands? Inquiring minds want to know.
Bill, I also would like to see where you think this happened.
John Harshman
"Bill, I also would like to see where you think this happened."
I have been looking for it. The comment was made by Mung that the paper cited did not back up its probability calculations. You did not defend the comment.
My questions to you on the paper was based on the relative probability that the argument was based on. It was clear to me that the probability which was not supported showed that the evolution of the bacteria from LUCA had a probability of greater than 1/10^2000 when we backed out archaea and eukaryotic cell types. This tells me that the a-priori assumption of the chosen mechanism was in error since this probability is smaller then the evolutionary resources available since OOL at 10^45.
LS
"Don't try shift the goalposts, Bill. Your claim was, and I quote, "universal common descent is an untested theory." Are you really going to continue to hold to that claim in the face of evidence that clearly refutes it? "
Let me simplify this for you. Show me a test that validated prokaryotic cells evolved in eukaryotic cells.
BTW a paper without an experiment is not evidence of a test.
LS
sorry replace in eukaryotic cells with into eukaryotic cells.
Stop squirming, Bill. Your claim: "Universal common descent is an untested theory." I provided a citation to a paper that tested it. A paper of which you admit you were already aware. That means you lied. Here's how you try to get out of admitting this:
BTW a paper without an experiment is not evidence of a test.
Oh, really, Bill? So suppose you claim to be the son of the Queen of England, and we perform a DNA test that shows this is not the case. Would you try say your claim has not yet been tested?
Oh, and this is just too rich:
The comment was made by Mung that the paper cited did not back up its probability calculations.
Mung!!? ROTFLMFAO! Yeah, and then you woke up. Here's an example of one of Mung's articles. He certainly seems very proud of it:
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/miracle-of-evolution-the-appendix/
This is who you consider to be an expert on evolutionary biology, who you claim called John out on the carpet? For real?
You did not defend the comment.
That's because I have Mung on "ignore". Why should anyone believe anything Mung says, other than that you really like to believe it?
It was clear to me that the probability which was not supported showed that the evolution of the bacteria from LUCA had a probability of greater than 1/10^2000 when we backed out archaea and eukaryotic cell types. This tells me that the a-priori assumption of the chosen mechanism was in error since this probability is smaller then the evolutionary resources available since OOL at 10^45.
I'm afraid you don't understand again. If I can interpret just a bit of your word salad, the probability in question (actually a likelihood) is the probability of exactly the DNA sequences in the data set given the tree being tested. Any given sequence has a vanishingly small probability, since vast number of different sequences would have been possible. The question is which tree makes the sequences most likely, and how much that tiny probability is greater than the even tinier probability of some less favored tree.
Fed, you are right there are insertions, deletions and duplications in comparing the human and chimp genome. But by what metric does this add 5%? How do duplications, for example, contribute to the 5%?
If you have too sentences,
"Marry me!"
and
"Marry me! Marry me!"
The second has an insertion relative to the first, or the first has a deletion relative to the second. But the insertion in 2 is a duplication of what's in 1. In fact the insertion in 2 is 100% identical to 1. Both halves of 2 are identical to something in 1.
Would you say 1 and 2 are 50% similar because half of 2 is an insertion? If you say, "Yes, 50% similar", you are grading them they same way you would grade
1. "Hello world."
and
2. "Hxlzo*w+r#d*"
Which also have 50% similarity. Do you think "Marry me!" vs "Marry me! Marry me!" has the same amount of similarity as "Hellow world" and "Hxlzo*w+r#d*"?
I always enjoy gene duplication stories. One of my favorites is how trichromatic color vision evolved. It remind me of Cinderella. Everything goes so wonderfully right, because it has to, because it is a story.
A simple search will show Meyer's claim that gene regulatory networks (GRNs) cannot be changed is wrong. GRNs have subcurcuits, some of which are resistant to change, while some are flexible and therefore available for evolutionary innovation:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3076009/
Bill:
"For the argument at hand lets just go with evolution is unlikely the result of blind and unguided process..."
Yup correct, this isn't what evolution is, this describes the windmill version of evolution you've setup as a strawman. Like Don Quixotte, you're attacking a windmill version of evolution, not the giant.
"... which is opposed to what is being taught at the moment."
And yes, this isn't what is being taught about evolution. This also doesn't describe what's being tested in many hundreds, perhaps even thousands of labs all over the globe.
Anyway, you claim something which is again "my version of evolution can't do this, thus goddidit". You just claim, without providing any evidence. Care to try again?
"When I was in the ninth grade, I asked my biology teacher how rattlesnakes could wind up with poison and fangs without knowing anything about their prey animals."
When I was in ninth grade I asked my physics teacher how a Thermos could keep hot stuff hot and cold stuff cold without knowing what was in it.
Just kidding!
John
"
I'm afraid you don't understand again. If I can interpret just a bit of your word salad, the probability in question (actually a likelihood) is the probability of exactly the DNA sequences in the data set given the tree being tested. Any given sequence has a vanishingly small probability, since vast number of different sequences would have been possible. The question is which tree makes the sequences most likely, and how much that tiny probability is greater than the even tinier probability of some less favored tree."
The probability equation is because the mechanism is trial and error. If the probabilities are this small for every scenario that puts the whole argument in question.
LS
"Stop squirming, Bill. Your claim: "Universal common descent is an untested theory." I provided a citation to a paper that tested it."
You really think the paper you cited tested UCD? If I can show you a paper on ID would you consider that a test?
If you wanted to show the world that UCD was a valid theory how would you test it?
You see, John, your problem is you're using the old fashioned Atheist Evolutionist Math. You need to use Bill Cole's amazing new Intelligent Design Creationist Jesus Math in order to understand his argument. Allow me to illustrate:
Let's imagine a lottery in which a single number between 1 and 1000 is drawn, and this is the winning number. Now, if you buy one ticket (with a single number) your odds of winning are 1 in 1000.
With me so far?
However, let's say you want to increase your odds somewhat, so you instead buy 999 tickets, each with a different number. Now, you might think you have increased your odds of winning to 99.9%. But you would be wrong, at least according to Bill Cole's Intelligent Design Creationist Jesus Math.
You see, if you hold only one number, then there are 1000 possible combinations of the number you hold and the number that is drawn. However, only one of these combinations results in a win for you (i.e. if both numbers match). So your odds of winning are 1/1000.
However, if you hold 999 different numbers, there are now 999,000 possible combinations of a number you hold, and the number that is drawn. However, and this is the crucial point, there is still only one winning number, for each drawing. So your odds of wining have now been drastically reduced, to a mere 1/999,000!
Numbers don't lie. Right, Bill?
You really think the paper you cited tested UCD?
It did. Of that there is no question. I'm sorry you're unable or unwilling to understand the paper.
If I can show you a paper on ID would you consider that a test?
Sure. Do you have any examples?
If you wanted to show the world that UCD was a valid theory how would you test it?
Here are some of the ways in which it has been tested:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Bill, it's amazing to note, every ID creationist makes the same mistake over and over and over again. They attack their windmill version of evolution (quote Bill: "The probability equation is because the mechanism is trial and error.") but not the real thing.
Sad really, the fact this attacking the windmill is repeated over and over again.
Ed, instead of repeating this over and over again, why don't you outline the distinctions between the windmill version and the real thing?
Or, Tx, you could read the population genetics papers (or texts about them) that have been available for nearly a century and understand the math, and what's going on behind the math. I know it's a big ask, but you're making a big (incorrect) criticism, and this is the most precise way to show you where and how you're wrong.
From there you could go on to neutral theory....
LS
"
It did. Of that there is no question. I'm sorry you're unable or unwilling to understand the paper.
If I can show you a paper on ID would you consider that a test?
Sure. Do you have any examples?
If you wanted to show the world that UCD was a valid theory how would you test it?
Here are some of the ways in which it has been tested:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/"
I disagree these are tests for UCD that validate the hypothesis that all life rose from a common ancestor.
One paper shows common biochemistry and infers common descent.
The other paper shows probability calculations that when you look at them closely show origin of bacteria so remote that evolution by what ever mechanism the author chose is very unlikely.
We have a fundamental disagreement on what a testable hypothesis is so I think we should table the discussion for now.
The probability equation is because the mechanism is trial and error. If the probabilities are this small for every scenario that puts the whole argument in question.
Yes, and because the probabilities are vanishingly small for every bridge hand, that puts the existence of bridge in question. Why not just accept that you have no idea what you're talking about and listen for a change?
We have a fundamental disagreement on what a testable hypothesis is so I think we should table the discussion for now.
But this is purely a result of your determined ignorance. Your disagreement is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the math. And you think you know more than the people who actually know what they're talking about. Arrogance is your main obstacle.
Bill,
To attempt to add to what John is saying, you're basing your objections on a misunderstanding about how likelihood-based statistical methods work. Calculating the likelihood for a particular model involves (among other things) multiplying together many numbers that are less than 1, which inevitably results in a very, very small number. The absolute value of a likelihood score is essentially irrelevant--only the relative likelihood scores (or typically the negative log of these values) of competing models matters in a likelihood analysis.
@ Bill Cole:
We have a fundamental disagreement on what a testable hypothesis is so I think we should table the discussion for now.
No, that is not the reason for our disagreement. The reason is that I am able to understand the things I read. You aren't.
Bill,
To attempt to add to what John is saying, you're basing your objections on a misunderstanding about how likelihood-based statistical methods work.
Or maybe he is working on a highly evolved version of statistical analysis, which is beyond the grasp of us mere mortals. A few posts above I have made what I believe to be a quite credible attempt, if I may say so, to apply Bill's statistical method to a simpler situation, the better to understand how it works. It does lead to some conclusions that, to the unenlightened, might seen counterintuitive. But I can only presume that I have represented Bill's method accurately, since he has not seen fit to correct me.
judmarc,
"Or, Tx, you could read...."
Nah. Ed has some inadequacy in mind when he mentions the windmill version of evolution. He should be able to explain what that is.
But then, I guess it could be like you being unable to repeat your good scientific definition of information. Maybe it is so impressive that it can’t be expressed in conversational language.
But then, I guess it could be like you being unable to repeat your good scientific definition of information.
Umm, you're quite confused. It's you creationists who keep blathering on about how "information" can only be produced by "intelligence". However, you always neglect to specify exactly what definition of "information" is being used. For the simple reason that, if you ever did provide a specific definition, it would immediately become apparent that the creationist claim is false. Surely you haven't forgotten this fiasco:
http://www.softwarematters.org/mathgrrl.html
Maybe it is so impressive that it can’t be expressed in conversational language.
It's called "math." You may have heard of it.
Tx:
"Nah. Ed has some inadequacy in mind when he mentions the windmill version of evolution. He should be able to explain what that is."
Sure, but the non-windmill version has been explained to you many times already, but you seem to have the uncanny knack of ignoring things which don't fit your needs, now does it?
Judmarc even now in the post above points you in the right direction, but instead you want to be spoon fed information.
If you're really interested in the topic, I think you can find tonnes of information here on this blog. It's all there, you only have to set aside your ... prejudices, and be willing to learn new things.
But, you've shown many times already, the inability to *want* to learn. So I seriously doubt you want to learn, but maybe you can surprise me. I really do hope you can surprise me. :-)
Anyone who believes being a moral, loving human requires one to think God poofed the Earth and life into existence in a week 6000 years ago is likely not reachable by reasoned argument, or even sheer mathematics. There is an incredible amount that has to be ignored in order to focus on such a belief, and all indications are that txpiper is dead set on continuing to ignore it.
Why he wishes to come here and say things to us so he can ignore our replies, I'm not quite sure.
lutesuite,
“you always neglect to specify exactly what definition of "information" is being used.”
The definition, as it pertains to biology, is pretty simple. Genetic information is purposeful instructions.
In which language are these "purposeful instructions" you imagine existing the genomes written?
"In which language are these "purposeful instructions" you imagine existing the genomes written?"
One that you can't speak, read or translate.
"The genetic language is a collection of rules and regularities of genetic information coding for genetic texts. It is defined by alphabet, grammar, collection of punctuation marks and regulatory sites, semantics."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8335231
So Russian, then?
judmarc,
“Anyone who believes being a moral, loving human requires one to think God poofed the Earth and life into existence in a week 6000 years ago is likely not reachable by reasoned argument, or even sheer mathematics.”
Well, lots of very bright people did, and do believe things like that.
On the other hand, you have to believe that your reasoned arguments are formulated with a brain that is the consequence of incomplete sets of chiral amino acids cruising in on meteorites, or something equally droll. And you must believe that something like fifty million cubic miles of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock accumulated over billions of years, and that dinosaur collagen can last for eighty million years. You also think that a tiny piece of real estate commanding the attention of the political world is just an historical coincidence.
But the thing I find most interesting, is that you believe that you are no more significant than one of Lenski’s bacterium. That is truly remarkable conclusion.
But the thing I find most interesting, is that you believe that you are no more significant than one of Lenski’s bacterium. That is truly remarkable conclusion.
Don't be intentionally thick. As I recall, you're the one who likes to insult people by referring to them with language applicable to childhood deformities, not me, so moral superiority really won't fly.
It may once have been possible to be "very bright" and believe the Earth, life, and the rest of the universe were created in a week 6000 years ago, but no one who is very bright believes that now. Not when you can pull the cable from a TV set and know the "snow" you see is the microwave background radiation from the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago; or when you drive a car or get on a bus that runs on gas distilled from petroleum found because geology and stratigraphy work. Or when you can pick up a Geiger counter and hear the clicks of radioactive decay, caused by the weak nuclear force, whose parameters are understood down to decimal places, and from which we get reliable means of dating rocks, fossils and human artifacts to long before 6,000 years ago.
Essentially, if God exists, He is telling you in these and innumerable other ways that the universe was created in a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago; the Earth and the rest of the Solar System formed 4.5 billion years ago; and life on Earth speciated by means of evolution. Why are you shutting Him out?
Shannon or Kolmogorov information is not exhaustive knowledge of information because many physicists think information is perhaps the fundamental thing in nature
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/110650/information-or-matter-or-energy
https://www.google.fi/#q=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2014/04/is-information-fundam%E2%80%A6
lutesuite:
Your links to supposed rebuttals to Meyer and Axe's "problems" are not very convincing. I looked at two, and had had enough.
The first link to Larry's putative rebuttal of the problem with the Cambrian Explosion proves nothing. Darwin expected to find a similar, but more basic, fossil record prior to the Cambrian as is now seen since the Cambrian. Good luck there.
As to 'information,' your provided link gets us to someone who doesn't seem to know up from down. He says that DNA is NOT a "code." That's great. So, tell me, what should we call the "genetic code"? Should we call it the "genetic data base"? I'm lost as to what to call it. It's a howler.
Lino,
1. There's pre-Cambrian fossils.
2. If you were able to read for understanding, you'd have no problem understanding why the DNA was said not to be a code. In science (as in most of our language), we use a lot of metaphors. Metaphors are supposed to help us understand. Unfortunately, they can also lead us astray if we take them too literally.
Anyway, I read what's in that link about information, and I wasn't in the slightest bothered from reading that DNA is not a code. Why? because I understood the explanation, and because I understand how science makes use of metaphors. You were bothered because you did not read any further, let alone for understanding, and because it contradicts your beliefs.
You need to learn to read for understanding. Dismissing something because of a sentence you did not care to put in context and read further for understanding doesn't really make you look any better informed, or any more reasonable. Nor does it convince me that Meyer's and Axe's bullshit wasn't rebutted. It just shows that you cannot read. Big deal.
If you cannot read for understanding, nothing will help you understand anything. Nothing lutesuite or me or anybody else explains will get through to you.
I don't even know if you will understand what I just wrote. I doubt it, though.
@ Lino Di Ischia,
The first link to Larry's putative rebuttal of the problem with the Cambrian Explosion proves nothing.
You need to be a bit more specific here. Exactly what errors were made in the molecular genetic studies demonstrating that the major animal phyla share common ancestry that dates back to well before the Cambrian era? And what evidence is there that, instead, these phyla all independently came into existence suddenly during the Cambrian?
You will have to rely on sources other than Meyer's book, since all he does there is complain about things he, as a non-scientist, doesn't understand regarding paleontology, phylogenetics and molecular biology. And for some reason, in writing a book on these subjects, he did not consult with experts in these fields, but instead relied on friends of his in the Discovery Institute who are just as confused as he is. Even so, he never gets around to so much as suggesting a mechanism by which these organisms could have suddenly poofed into existence, which one would think should be an important topic to address in such a book.
So I'm hopeful, as always, that an ID creationist will finally be able to provide positive evidence for their claim, as opposed to demonstrations that they do not understand evolutionary theory. I hope you will not be just another who disappoints me, Lino.
Post a Comment