Why We Are Still Arguing About Darwin

TCS Daily ^ | 10 Jan 2008 | Lee Harris

[gondramB]

>>Would you be willing to stand up before an audience of your PhD peers and explain in some mathematical detail exactly what physical law is violated by the process of evolution that would not also be violated by metabolism?<<

BVW, totally aside from your credentials, I am curious as to what law you think is violated by evolution and how you would show that to be true.

[bvw]

What law? I'm with you, there is evolution! Ideas evolve. Human designers evolve their systems as the ideas evolve. There is a feedback loop -- the first generation of automobiles were considerably different than the 2008's.

However the idea that biological systems as complex as an cell evolved WITHOUT a designer violates the law of probability. That is the likelihood of a cell occurring by chance through some designer-free evolution, without a purposeful designer is so vanishingly small as to be indistinguishable for all practical purposes from zero.

[Coyoteman]

However the idea that biological systems as complex as an cell evolved WITHOUT a designer violates the law of probability. That is the likelihood of a cell occurring by chance through some designer-free evolution, without a purposeful designer is so vanishingly small as to be indistinguishable for all practical purposes from zero.

The following online lecture kind of changes that estimate of probability, doesn't it?

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell

Abstract: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

[bvw]

According to the lecture summary Prof. Odell is way overstating how "thoughtless, haphazard, non-designed" his system is. The system is FULL OF design. Where that design is found needs a subtle intellect! It's easy to ignore because it's in buried in the background. A purposeful researcher, and humans generally, focuses on the foreground.

Here are some of the many things that are designed, upon which his results are based, necessary for his results. Not a full listing:

• the computer system
• the program that implemented the "genetic" algorithm, which might called the virtual ecosystem
• the initial settings of the state vector of the process
• the observation points and outputs that allowed the Professor to monitor the process or/and results
• the selection algorithm and/or the rubric by which the Professor evaluated the algorithm
• the language and grammar (presumably modern English) the Professor used to write down his ideas, to communicate with peers, that was used by those who taught him
• the Professor's clothes which kept him warm
• the building the Professor worked in
• the ground the building stood on
• time
• space
• physics
• the Professor himself

[Coyoteman]

According to the lecture summary Prof. Odell is way overstating how "thoughtless, haphazard, non-designed" his system is. The system is FULL OF design. Where that design is found needs a subtle intellect! It's easy to ignore because it's in buried in the background. A purposeful researcher, and humans generally, focuses on the foreground.

That has nothing to do with the probability problem, or that lecture, at all.

Don't you think you might view the online lecture before dismissing it? Or before lecturing me as to what it says?

[bvw]

I will view the actual lecture, but I also stand by my comments, because I have already thought through the general case of such experiments, and his has all appearances of being well within the bounds of those considered. Still, it is polite to check out the actual presentation having entered this far into this ongoing conversation.

[bvw]

Okay I started watching this lecture. He’s a cool guy, that’s for sure. Early comments: (1) I want my confiscated knives back before they get shrunk into nano-tools used by government genetic cloning experiments ;-) (2) He’s a great lecturer.

[unlearner]

"Ok. So what 'kind' is a porpoise?"

The order, Cetacea , is probably a reasonable approximation of the "kind" in this case.

As you know, and I have already stated, there is no agreed upon, systematic organization of life forms into "kinds".

I already gave a generalized definition based on nothing but my opinion.

If you have a point, go ahead and make it.

"Not necessarily. Classification systems have their uses as organizational umbrellas."

Well, after contradicting what I said, you essentially restated what I said.

Per www.m-w.com/dictionary:
capricious
Pronunciation: \kə-ˈpri-shəs, -ˈprē-\
Function: adjective
: governed or characterized by caprice : impulsive
unpredictable
synonyms see inconstant


arbitrary
Pronunciation: \ˈär-bə-ˌtrer-ē,
-ˌtre-rē\
Function: adjective
1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law ... 3 a: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something

inherent
Pronunciation: \-ənt\
Function: adjective
: involved in the constitution or essential character of something
: belonging by nature or habit : intrinsic

My point is NOT that taxonomic nomenclature is useless. My point is that it cannot be consulted as supporting evidence for evolutionary theory. That would be like invoking alphabetic order to prove that two random events were related because of similar descriptions.

On the contrary, if there is MEANINGFUL order to the natural realm, that in itself implies Design (with a capital D). I know all about the arguments of the semantics of the word. But the bottom line is that science actively searches for meaning , order and logic in the Universe. The concepts of deity and creator are philosophical presuppositions of true science.

Many proponents of evolution equivilate materialism with science. This conclusion can only be arrived at by philosophic choice. Science does not presuppose this. Faulty logic leads from empiricism to materialism. The scientific method does not discriminate between ideas that are arrived at by faith or foolishness, deliberation or chance. (I am referring to hypothesis formulation and selection.) They just need to be testable and supportable by empirical evidence.

The meaning of the universe may be like music. There is a physiological response to music in the ears and brains of listeners who perceive the music. Without this, there is no music, only noise, or at most empty sound.

Materialists are tone deaf to the meaning that is readily apparent to most. Why? My opinion and best guess is that it is due to a moral bent - damage from guilt, bitterness, lust, greed, or something of this nature, has damaged their ability to perceive what is in plain sight.

Radical materialism transforms science from a thing of beauty to a dull, lifeless, empty void. In it there are no explanatory theories. It can only describe and never explain.

[js1138]

...it does however require that we be objective and declare defeat when the evidences and answers that we do have render a hypothesis unworkable.

I eagerly look forward to the day you achieve objectivity. In the meantime I will continue to be amused by you and your Associates.

[CottShop]

already achieved it JS- but do feel free to keep on laughing and beleiving that Macroevolution isn’t a giant leap of faith based on impossible naturalistic assumptions that don’t violate the lawsd or usurp biological possibilities. Have fun giggling all the way to the end.

[CottShop]

[[Where that design is found needs a subtle intellect! It’s easy to ignore because it’s in buried in the background. A purposeful researcher, and humans generally, focuses on the foreground.]]

You will never make that clear to them no matter how hard you try or the facts you present. If there’s a 1 in 10 to the 360’th power chance of even one single event being a slight possibility, then that’s all the ‘proof’ they need for Macroevoltuion. And just for hte record- that lecture has already been rebuttled- evben still though, it’s a favorite link for Coyoteman who ignores the rebuttles, waits a certain amount of time, then reposts it after everyone has forgotten about hte refuting.

[Coyoteman]

And just for hte record- that lecture has already been rebuttled- evben still though, it’s a favorite link for Coyoteman who ignores the rebuttles, waits a certain amount of time, then reposts it after everyone has forgotten about hte refuting.

I post legitimate science, you post religious propaganda, and you think that constitutes a rebuttal?

The stuff you link to, almost entirely gleaned from creationist or creation "science" websites, does not pertain to real science at all, let alone rebut any of it.

[CottShop]

I didn’;t link to naythign for the rebuttle- so enough with the lame old tired out phrases Coyoteman- There was no need to link to anythign else because the lecture was nothign but a slieght of hand one trick pony show- Therei s NOTHING random about ingeneau- it is all worked out ahead of time, starting points are given with informations already inplace, and ready to react to a new set of instructions when they come passing by. As well, the Proff. completely ignores where all the informations came from to start with, and his Johnny come lately ‘random’ program is nothign but random and has been soundly refuted in many forums- not just ‘christian’ ones.

[[The stuff you link to, almost entirely gleaned from creationist or creation “science” websites, does not pertain to real science at all, let alone rebut any of it.]]

You’ve YET to show how any of what I do post fro msites isn’t lgiti science- Saying it aint don’t make it so Coyoteman- you’ve got to do more than stomp your foot and insist- you’ve got to actually do a little bit of work and actually address issues- not run from them screaming that they aint ligit.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

I have read several of these so-called “rebuttals,” and in the vast majority of cases they leave the scientific issues untouched. They restate the creationist position but never show any errors in their opponents’ methods or conclusions—except to say the conclusions can’t be right because, well, they just can’t! Being the last one to speak is not the same thing as a successful rebuttal.

[CottShop]

Once again- Your beloved Ingeneau program fails to take into account several key factors when they’re ‘simulating random assembly”. The only thing your program prudueced was a neural network, but yet these networks are useless by themselves. Single cells, which are suppsoed to be simplistic, contain hundreds of traits already present, accoutned for, and functioning properly in order for hte cell to survive- there was no ‘step-wise’ process leading up to the assembly of htese complex systems.

As well, your program, like every other designed algorithm program, protects the ‘most fit’, ensuring that nothing happens to it while it awaits more ‘random’ algorithmically designed mutations to occur, and nature does no such thing- this is another design feature of Ingeneau that simply is not present in nature.

How true to nature was the ‘mutation’ rate of the program Coyote? Was it true to nature? or was it artificially inflated thousands of times beyond what nature does? Organisms would have to be subject4ed to unnaturaly high radioactive environments in order to see the mumbers of mutations that these programs spit out, and which can only produce simple neural networks minus all the complexities of actual living systems. Your program produces simplistic ‘complexities’ and calls it good enough, infering that systems FAR greater incomplexities can result from these simplistic ‘complexity’ models ‘created’ by a DESIGNED netowrk that already has all the parameters and figures worked out in advance, and which works with information that somehow makes it onto the scenne without any help from a designer.

Your program targets specific points for mutations, and as you full well know, nature doesn’t target- it simply TRULY Randomly hits wherever and whenever- Your program needed target points in order to ‘get the ball working’, and it needed guided and artificially high numbers of mutations working on only a select few samples whereas nature has to work on billions.

I’ve only gone through about 3/4 of the lecture (once again) and it is clear that this is anythign but a random process so far- I’ll listen to the rest tomorrow, but I’m sure the rest will just amount to the proff. explanining away the problems with the model, or at best, just be more of the same programmed ‘randomness’ disguised as undirected algorithms

[CottShop]

Then you have not read the right rebuttles because the ones I’ve read do EXACTLY touch on all the relevent issues

[[except to say the conclusions can’t be right because, well, they just can’t!]]

That’s a load of horsecrap- I’m not sure what sites you listened to or read, but “Bob’sBigBookofScience” blog isn’t the place to go for actual scientific rebuttles- try looking a little harder- you’ll find what you’re itching to read I’m sure.

[CottShop]

here- why not start your search here- I assure you Desmki doesn’t state “they can’t be right because...well, they just can’t” (Which we all recognize was a gross falsification on your part as to what most rebuttles to electronic algorithm programs actually state.)

[CottShop]

woops- forgot the link:

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_americasobsession.htm

Coyote and the good proff. know full well that computer models are rife with problems and that they in no way represent the natural process, but coyote continuously posts this link in the hopes that some unsuspeciting dupes won’t see any rebuttles to the genetic algorithms, and will buy into it thiunking it’s an impressive display of the possibilties of Macroevolution. It is not- it’s a wasted effort and wasted money that show that desing is needed, but Coyote declare at his last breath that it is wonderful example of the possibility of Macroevolution. It’s nothign but more of the same equivicableness that declares that 3 bricks setting atop each other after a storm is enough to show that brick buildings could have naturally evovled “given enough time”

Anyway- I’ll post about more problems with the gentic algorthims tomorrow- But really- despite repeated postings rebuttling the issue, it will simply be ignored and the same link to hte program will be posted again in the future in the hopes that noone challenges it with facts and that some peopel will swallow the deceitfulness hook line and sinker. Coyote seems ot think that waving the magic wand of dismissal and calling any rebuttles ‘propoganda’ is a good defense, but I’’ll simply let the facts speak for themselves.

[From many - one.]

The story so far:
[[One more time: the flora of islands is quite limited.]]
“The southwest Pacific island of New Caledonia, covering approximately 17,000 km², has a remarkably diverse and highly endemic flora for an area its size, with an estimated 3,137 native species of angiosperms and gymnosperms (79% endemic), representing about 763 genera (14% endemic), and 169 families (3% endemic).”
“The flora of Andaman and Nicobar group of islands, India, comprises approx 2200 species of flowering plants; of these, “
“Cuba. Cuba is by far the most important island in the region in terms of biodiversity, particularly for plant diversity, with more than 6,500 vascular plants, of which about half are endemic.”
There are many more examples- All are islands which cropped up and which had zero flora in the beginning and hwich grew diverse flora over time- all of which made hteir way there in various ways- some through birds carrying seeds in excrement, some through other animals doing hte same, some through drift. From the basic KINDS that did survive, we now have a variety of subspecies- all of which science is finding out can occure quite rapidly and with great variety.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You have (inadvertently, I assume) reinforced my point. Those numbers, while large for the size for the island, are actually quite small in terms of plant biodiversity, thus reinforcing the position that very few plants can survive a prolonged flood.

[From many - one.]

“Animals age and die; when they die, rot sets in. Obviously the 2nd law is at work even now. It’s obviously at work because of the aging process and the deterioration that sets in, even while the organism is alive.”

1. not all animals age in the sense of senescence.
a collection of google refs:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=rockfish+senescence&spell=1

2. (same ref) it appears that some animals have the potential to be immortal

3. rot is not the terrible thing you seem to think... it is simply the preparation for recycling, the first step being feeding microorganisms and fungi.