Posted on 08/13/2003 9:02:05 PM PDT by nwrep
I've dealt with that one before in critiquing a paper on the Cambrian from the prestidigitatious prestigious Discovery Institute.
A very fast capsule summary:
Exactly. Why they think a massive societal degradation to the ignorance, misery, and brutality of the dark ages is a good idea, is an enigma.
Less homework, no math, and a warm & cozy feeling of being special. What could be better?
If Ronald Reagan had said, “communism isn’t working,” it would not be news. But when Gorbachev said, “communism isn’t working,” it was history book material. Similarly, when Darwinists writing in a Darwinist-friendly scientific journal say that evolutionary theory isn’t working to explain one of the most important problems that had stumped Darwin, it is an occasion that should arouse the world news media for a press conference, replete with anxious reporters asking hard-hitting questions. Yet you probably will not hear about it except right here; the admission is hidden away in a Dispatch in the Aug. 19 issue of Current Biology (emphasis added in all quotes):
"A central goal of evolutionary biology is to explain the origin of complex organs – the ribosomal machinery that translates the genetic code, the immune system that accurately distinguishes self from non-self, eyes that can resolve precise images, and so on. Although we understand [sic] in broad outline how such extraordinary systems can evolve by natural selection, we know very little about the actual steps involved, and can hardly begin to answer general questions about the evolution of complexity. For example, how much time is required for some particular structure to evolve?"
In their article, Nick Barton and Willem Zuidema (Univ. of Edinburgh, where Darwin attended for awhile), admit that traditional biological approaches (like population genetics) for explaining the evolution of complex structures have not worked:
"Complex systems – systems whose function requires many interdependent parts are vanishingly unlikely to arise purely by chance. Darwin’s explanation of their origin is that natural selection establishes a series of variants, each of which increases fitness. This is an efficient way of sifting through an enormous number of possibilities, provided there is a sequence of ever-increasing fitness that leads to the desired feature. To use Sewall Wright’s metaphor, there must be a path uphill on the ‘adaptive landscape.’"
"The crucial issue, then, is to know [sic] what variants are available – what can be reached from where – and what is the fitness of these variants. Is there a route by which fitness can keep increasing? Population genetics is not much help here. Given the geometry defined by mutation and recombination, and given the fitnesses, we can work out how a population will change, simply by following the proportion of different types through time. But understanding [sic] how complex features evolve requires plausible models for the geometry of the adaptive landscape, which population genetics by itself does not provide."
The authors point to artificial life models like those of Lenski and Adami to provide some hope for a solution to the evolution of complex structures. They describe some of the apparently complex functions that “digital organisms“ arrived at, when set free to evolve in simulations according to simple rules designed into the program. Though encouraged by these, Barton and Zuidema are not entirely impressed:
"Artificial Life models such as Lenski et al.’s are perhaps interesting in themselves, but as biologists we are concerned here with the question of what Artificial Life can tell us about real organisms. The difficulty in answering this is that much work in this field is rather isolated from traditional evolutionary biology."
While hopeful that synergy between biologists and computer programmers might provide mutual insights, they have doubts that the computer organisms have any connection to the real world.
"In population genetics and evolutionary game theory, we design models to study the success and failure of a predefined set of traits or strategies in the struggle for life. But what are the possible traits? And how well do they succeed in particular environments with particular competitors? These questions are ignored in traditional models – they come in as parameters to be provided by developmental biology and ecology. For understanding the evolution of complex traits this is not satisfactory, because these parameters are themselves shaped by evolution [sic]. Evolutionary processes constantly shift the targets of evolutionary optimization [sic], create spatial patterns, turn competitors into mutualists and create new levels of selection. Artificial Life models of such phenomena ... promise to be useful for developing the concepts and techniques to deal with that challenge, but only if they are combined with the insights from almost a century of population genetics."
The Dispatch is entitled, “Evolution: the erratic path towards complexity,” by Nick Barton and Willem Zuidema. If you have sifted these statements for any evidence for evolution, or realistic explanations for the evolution of any single complex system, you have undoubtedly found all chaff and no grain. It’s all emptiness and futility, wishful thinking, models that are too complex to relate to the real world, leaning on broken reeds, trusting in others’ work that never gets delivered, and vaporware on back order. Yet this is the theory that is so obviously a fact that anything else is pseudoscience that must be shielded from students? This is the greatest idea anyone ever had, so intuitively obvious that it has taken over the world as the encapsulation of all that is certain about nature? This is the theory that should no longer be called a theory, but a fact like gravity?
We hasten to make clear that Barton and Zuidema are evolutionists, and did not write this article to in any way claim that they doubt Darwinian evolution. But that is what makes their admissions so damaging. If Henry Morris had said this, no one would pay attention, because he (presumably) has an axe to grind and an ulterior motive. But these guys just gave away the store. They admitted that after all these years, the Darwinists are no nearer to explaining the origin of an eye, or dolphin sonar, or butterfly wings, or immune systems, than Charlie himself was in 1859.
Notice how they look yearningly, hopefully to the computer programmers to provide some relief to the befuddled population geneticists (with their crude models built partly on the personification fallacy of game theory), but then turn right around and criticize the programmers for not being realistic, and ignoring the “insights from almost a century of population genetics.” It’s like a cartoon character in quicksand calling another guy in the same quicksand for help. Does anyone see anything solid that any evolutionist is standing on, that should give Eugenie Scott of the NCSE confidence in the righteousness of her crusade to keep evolution the sole contender in the public schools? The arrogance of the Darwin Party, given admissions like this one, is astounding.
Barton and Zuidema claim that biologists understand evolution in broad terms, just not in the details. But they cannot even begin to point to any plausible series of steps on the fitness landscape that would allow a mindless organism to climb uphill to an adaptive peak – to evolve an eye, or a brain, an immune system, or any other complex feature, when every step in the imaginary sequence (for which there is no fossil evidence) would have had to provide enough survival value to make it triumph over all competitors, such that every organism without the lucky trait would have died out (this is called the “cost of selection”). They admit these complex systems are extraordinary. They admit they are irreducibly complex (in their words, “systems whose function requires many interdependent parts”). They admit that the probability of getting any complex system by chance is vanishingly small. They admit Darwin’s explanation, to be efficient at sifting through the enormous possibilities, is provisional on the requirement for a sequence of plausible intermediates each one increasing the fitness of the organism (but how efficient can that be when there is slippage on the treadmill due to indirect genetic effects?) They are utterly clueless how long it would be expected to take for the “slight, successive modifications” to add up to a complex system. And yet complex systems are the rule in biology, not the exception! (See today’s headline on sponges for an interesting example.) They claim they understand the broad outline of how such “extraordinary systems could evolve by natural selection,” then two phrases later, they admit “we can hardly begin to answer general questions about the evolution of complexity.” About face! (Speaking about faces, they are pretty complex systems, too.)
We joke about car engines held together with glue, rubber bands and popsicle sticks. Darwinism is like a shiny sports car advertised to the world as the hottest thing since religion went out of style. Just don’t lift up the hood.
From here: Darwinists Fumble on the Evolution of Complex Structures
Enjoy! ~MM
I have not read your post yet, but felt the need to make the statement.
I join you in congratulating DittoJed2 for all her hard work and faithfulness in presenting the Creationist point of view! A few others have assisted here and there, but she's pretty much carried the full load the last couple of days. Hugs to you, DittoJed2!
And much gratitude to all of you for making this debate a very pleasant learning experience for all of us Lurking!
Interesting about the hoatzin, one of the most primitive birds, and one which seems not to be closely related to any other living bird. The wing claws are found only in the young bird, and persist only for 10 weeks. It looks very much like a case of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny.
Ostrich wing claws are modified feathers and not in any way homologous.
Baby birds are born with a tooth like appendage that helps them get out of their shell, so they must have the genetics to form teeth.
Ever seen a chick 'egg tooth'? Know where it is?
http://www.owlpages.com/species/bubo/virginianus/greathorned12.html
And, a bony tail could be just a micro-evolution adaptation of a creature or some strange genetic mutation.
All Archaeopteryxes have them, so it's not a simple mutation of one individual.
Buit more broadly, your post fails Occam's razor. The simplest and most compact explanation is that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form. You can always argue that all of its reptilian features were secondary adaptations; but no living bird shows wing claws in the adult derived from the hand bones; no other shows teeth in the jaw in any way homologous to reptilian teeth; and no other has a long, bony tail.
I find it hard to understand why scientists would be worrying about such a "problem". As has been asserted here, it is meaningless to discuss any problem involving probabilities that cannot be calculated. So why the fuss? If you do not have a preconceived answer to the question of something complex arising from something non-complex, it is a problem. That statement cuts both ways.
If you don't already have it, you might want to add this interview with Marcel-Paul Schützenberger to your archives.
Agreed. It was only a matter of getting "the willing" to sit down and thrash it out. But I must point out that not only is everyone here well-behaved, but there are also some recently-active posters (I can think of three or four) who ... how shall I put this? ... did not sign the agreement and who are not participating in the thread. So it's sometimes more than a matter of what you see; sometimes you need to consider what you don't see. Mull it over.
Similarly, when Darwinists writing in a Darwinist-friendly scientific journal say that evolutionary theory isn’t working to explain one of the most important problems that had stumped Darwin, it is an occasion that should arouse the world news media for a press conference, replete with anxious reporters asking hard-hitting questions.
MM claims the article says 'evolutionary theory isn't working'. Unfortunately, if you actually read the article, it says "As the entire fossil history of digital organisms is preserved in the computer, it really should be possible to understand their evolution in quantitative terms.", and concludes
But conversely, there are also potential benefits for evolutionary biology. In population genetics and evolutionary game theory, we design models to study the success and failure of a predefined set of traits or strategies in the struggle for life. But what are the possible traits? And how well do they succeed in particular environments with particular competitors? These questions are ignored in traditional models – they come in as parameters to be provided by developmental biology and ecology. For understanding the evolution of complex traits this is not satisfactory, because these parameters are themselves shaped by evolution. Evolutionary processes constantly shift the targets of evolutionary optimization, create spatial patterns, turn competitors into mutualists and create new levels of selection. Artificial Life models of such phenomena (for example, see [12–14]) promise to be useful for developing the concepts and techniques to deal with that challenge, but only if they are combined with the insights from almost a century of population genetics.
The article is an opinion piece by a couple of biologists, bemoaning the fact that mathematical modellers have ignored (they say) the insights of population biologists and game theorists in constructing models of evolution. It is anything but pessimistic about evolutionary theory; in fact, it expressed optimism that mathematics will be successful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.