Review of Godless -- (Centers on Evolution)

Powells Review a Day ^ | August 10, 2006 | Jerry Coyne

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

But, of course, the parts of a flagellum are independently useful, and a path can be found in which all steps are useful.

Really? Since the entire flagella is composed of parts which are necessary to its function, how then is each part independently useful? What are they useful for?

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

But... my point is that there was only one path chosen. As such the evolution of each useable sub part (or function, if you will) is an order of magnitude greater than the one it is a part of, since it is necessary for both to exist in order for both to to work.

Now, I'm not much up on probability theory, but I believe that what I'm indicating is that for a given, known and provable path (of which we have many examples), the odds are overwhelmingly against random chance. One of the problems inherent in assuming (practically) infinite paths is that they are not testable. Also, from a practical aspect, each useable function has an extremely limited set of paths.

Part of the problem of assuming a huge amount of available paths for a given function is that the function has, arguably, only followed one of the paths. Therefore, assuming the possibility of multiple paths for a given function which has only one is a little strange.

When using theoretical probabilities, perhaps it would be better to assume theoretical functions. When talking of actual parts, the odds are anything but theoretical

[Diamond]

There is no peer reviewed "attacks" on cook books, readers digest articles, b.c. comic strips, Star Trek novels or lots of other things. Peer reviewed science journals are reserved for science. Peer reviewed critiques are also reserved for science.

Nice try, but what do cook books, readers digest articles, b.c. comic strips, Star Trek novels have to do with the collection of, and analyis of, high retentions of nuclear-decay-generated helium in microscopic zircons (ZrSiO4 crystals)? Did you even read the research paper?

ICR is not a scientific organization. At best, it is a political organization.

It is genetic fallacy to reject the validity of scientific data based on the political or religious views of the source. If you can produce some contrary bore hole data, let's see it. Until then comparison of the research to a comic strip is empty bluster.

Cordially,

[Diamond]

lead you to believe that the charge (which, btw, wasn't that the data was fabricated)...

Wasn't that the data was fabricated?

To: Diamond; freedumb2003

You're misrepresenting the talkorigins write-up. The data in this case were fabricated to match the prediction.

A better example would have been a cosmological one. The Bible documents a creation event that is now accepted in the "big bang" theory. The previous steady-state theory is now discredited and no longer studied.

313 posted on 08/18/2006 2:23:00 PM CDT by <1/1,000,000th%

Cordially,

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You're misrepresenting the talkorigins write-up. The data in this case were fabricated to match the prediction.

A better example would have been a cosmological one. The Bible documents a creation event that is now accepted in the "big bang" theory. The previous steady-state theory is now discredited and no longer studied.

[freedumb2003]

Nice try, but what do cook books, readers digest articles, b.c. comic strips, Star Trek novels have to do with the collection of, and analyis of, high retentions of nuclear-decay-generated helium in microscopic zircons (ZrSiO4 crystals)? Did you even read the research paper?

Because if it is not published in a recognized scientific journal and peer-reviewed then it is just meaningless words -- like Asimov's famous "thiotimoline" article -- and is thus classified with the other works I listed.

It is genetic fallacy to reject the validity of scientific data based on the political or religious views of the source. If you can produce some contrary bore hole data, let's see it. Until then comparison of the research to a comic strip is empty bluster.

What in the heck is a "genetic fallacy?" Again, I don't need to provide an argument against something that doesn't exist in the science milleu.

[js1138]

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

[js1138]

...but I believe that what I'm indicating is that for a given, known and provable path (of which we have many examples), the odds are overwhelmingly against random chance.

That is true of any path, before it happens. One cannot predict the weather, nor could anyone a century ago, have predicted the events leading up to your birth and upbringing.

It's rather foolish, however, to calculate the odds against a complex phenomenon after it has happened.

The basic error in using probability against evolution is assuming that certain things have to happen a certain way, or that complex structures are specified in advance.

If evolution calculated structures and traits in advance of need, species would never go extinct.

[Diamond]

Because if it is not published in a recognized scientific journal and peer-reviewed then it is just meaningless words --

Well I guess The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life is meaningless words, then. Better chalk up Heisenberg and his Uncertainty Principle and the Friedmann and his cosmological model as meaningless words, because neither paper was published in a peer reviewed journal either.

Cordially,

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Thanks for the article link. Just like to point out a few things:

Much of the author's posits are speculatory at best (and he is careful to note this). I note that he remarks that Ton B and Tol A share sequence similarities to Mot AB homologs. Therefore, he implies that the Mot AB homologs are just a mutant variation of Ton B and Tol A. While that could be, it is a bit speculative on his part to say this. However, he notes that the functions between these different proteins is similar, if not exactly the same.

As an aside I will admit, now that I've thought it over, that many parts have multiple functions (such as the human mouth used for both eating and talking). As an explanation, when I was talking of one part/one function, I was thinking in terms of parts which could not produce a function without each other (such as the heart and lungs - to use a crude example).

The author also talks of random mutations to achieve the flagellum without noting the enormous difficulties attached to this approach. His arguments could just as easily lead to the conclusion that the flagellum is grown on purpose by bacteria to escape population pressures. The assumption is also made that bacteria containing the new feature would retain it when it reproduces. If the flagellum is created by secretion (as emphasized by the author), the necessary changes to DNA to make the new structure heritable by succeeding generations would not necessarily be done.

But to get back to the original argument, the author provides a very nicely reasoned supposition that the motors in the flagellum already exist in another form in the bacteria. This may very well be true, but it still is supposition and needs to be confirmed. It doesn't explain at all how Tan A & Tan L become Mot A and Mot B. Also, the author's premise is that this is an evolutionary tactic. This could be so, but considering that the author implies that the proto flagellum could be created by a bacteria deliberately using secretions to do so, it highly likely that this is a random chance event.

I would have to say that a self-directed mutation (if mutation it is) may or may not be evolutionary in tone (it may just be a different breed of the same animal), but it is definately not Darwinistic is approach.

[js1138]

I see no evidence that evolution is ever deliberate. It may appear to be if you assume that things are what they are because of planning, but if evolution could plan, species would not go extinct.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

It's foolish to base predictions on what is already known? Every climatologist that I know will run last year's known weather through their climate-predicting models.

It's called baselining.

Things may not have to happen in a certain way, but given that they did and that we know what the complex structures already are, we can baseline the results. The problem with not doing so, is that your data becomes devoid of the real world real quickly.

Assuming a large number of viable paths gives just as much weight to a theoretical path as it does to a known one. How do you know all paths are equal? The type of probability modelling you are talking of is at least as difficult to do as climate modelling - and just as accurate.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Well now, that is interesting. Whenever I talk to a geneticist on this subject, I ask "is evolution random?" Invariably, and without hesitation, they give me a resounding "no." If evolution is following a set of orderly rules (as I've been told time and again), why and where did those rules come from? The logical implications alone are staggering.

This also goes against Darwinists who insist on random mutation, when there is no such animal.

Why mathematically, true randomness escapes us and if mathematicians cannot achieve randomness, then what hope have evolutionists of doing so? Although, to be fair, John Dean seems to be a fairly random number.

[js1138]

Well now, that is interesting. Whenever I talk to a geneticist on this subject, I ask "is evolution random?" Invariably, and without hesitation, they give me a resounding "no."

Variation does not anticipate need. In that sense it is random.

Selection is complex and uncomputable, but not random.

Together, evolution is deterministic but not predictable. Living things do not aspire to evolve features like flagella. They do not strive to evolve in a certain direction. Mutation and genetic variation is stochastic.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Well now, that is interesting. Whenever I talk to a geneticist on this subject, I ask "is evolution random?" Invariably, and without hesitation, they give me a resounding "no."

Randomness in evolution as creationists understand it, was invented by creationists. Biologists understand randomness in evolution to mean, randomness in the characteristics of a population.

At the genetic level, the usual rules of chemistry apply, even if they have to be determined by trial and error.

Just out of curiousity, where do you have access to all of the geneticists you ask this?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Better chalk up Heisenberg and his Uncertainty Principle and the Friedmann and his cosmological model as meaningless words, because neither paper was published in a peer reviewed journal either.

Generally I would agree with you. Even though I think a good idea should be pursued in peer reviewed journals, even if it isn't accepted at first.

However, you are incorrect about Heisenberg. With his student and assistant, Hans Euler, he published his "Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik", in the journal, ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHYSIK 43: 172-198 in 1927.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I didn't notice I was quoted in post 464.

I wonder if I can start writing creationist books for the big money now.

[Stultis]

Because if it is not published in a recognized scientific journal and peer-reviewed then it is just meaningless words --

Well I guess The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life is meaningless words, then.

Your supposition that Darwin's theory wasn't published, prior to his book, in the journal or proceedings of a learned society is inaccurate.

Joint papers (from Darwin and evolution-via-natural-selection independent co-discoverer Alfred Russell Wallace) were read before The Linnean Society of London in 1858, and published in their proceedings (Vol 3 1858. pp 45-62.).

You can read these papers on at least two websites (the second belonging to the Linnean itself):

http://www.life.umd.edu/emeritus/Reveal/PBIO/darwin/darwindex.html

http://www.linnean.org/index.php?id=53

[Stultis]

I didn't notice I was quoted in post 464.

Diamond shoulda pung ya.

I stand corrected attributing "fabricated" to his reading of the Humphreys article. However Humphreys' attempt to respond to his critic, Henke, remains laughably inadequate, and laced with dishonesty. Of course this puts it fully on par for a creationist "contribution".

[freedumb2003]

Well I guess The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (etc. etc. etc.)...

The review process wasn't then what it is today. What happend back then is irrelevant. Today science needs to be peer reviewed and published in scientific journals, not political blogs.

[freedumb2003]

Oh and I see your (now shown to be false) assertion about what wasn't peer reviewed (I never said I was a scientific historian) has been pretty well crushed.

You should have quit while you were ahead.

Hmmm, I guess I shouldn't say that since you have not been ahead in this discussion yet. I apologize.