A Revolution in Evolution Is Underway

Thomas More Lawcenter ^ | Tue, Jan 18, 2005

[Jay777]

ANN ARBOR, MI — The small town of Dover, Pennsylvania today became the first school district in the nation to officially inform students of the theory of Intelligent Design, as an alternative to Darwin’s theory of Evolution. In what has been called a “measured step”, ninth grade biology students in the Dover Area School District were read a four-paragraph statement Tuesday morning explaining that Darwin’s theory is not a fact and continues to be tested. The statement continued, “Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view.” Since the late 1950s advances in biochemistry and microbiology, information that Darwin did not have in the 1850s, have revealed that the machine like complexity of living cells - the fundamental unit of life- possessing the ability to store, edit, and transmit and use information to regulate biological systems, suggests the theory of intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of life and living cells.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm representing the school district against an ACLU lawsuit, commented, “Biology students in this small town received perhaps the most balanced science education regarding Darwin’s theory of evolution than any other public school student in the nation. This is not a case of science versus religion, but science versus science, with credible scientists now determining that based upon scientific data, the theory of evolution cannot explain the complexity of living cells.”

“It is ironic that the ACLU after having worked so hard to prevent the suppression of Darwin’s theory in the Scopes trial, is now doing everything it can to suppress any effort to challenge it,” continued Thompson.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply!

It seems that the assertion that life forms are designed implies that their properties are known in advance of "manufacture". Not a big job for God, perhaps, but a tall order for anyone else.

A lesser issue, and perhaps more ameneable to research, is whether allele changes have predictable consequenses. There are, of course at least levels of consequense. The first would be structural. Can the resulting organism survive. The second consequence would be ecological. How does the change affect the organism's reproductive success in a world teeming with competitors and preditors. Can this be predicted, even in principle?

Indeed, that is why I focused on space/time in my initial response. All of your objections (e.g. "whether allele changes have predictable consequenses") - are based on the perspective of a corporeal entity within the hypercube of four dimensional space/time moving along a worldline.

But if the designer is a cosmic ancestor with vision/mind of an extra temporal dimension - and especially considering God the Creator outside of space/time - then the objection of unpredictability fails because the future is known for every design or design change.

If evidenced, your objection would preclude corporeal entities with four dimensional vision/minds moving on worldlines within the hypercube of space/time from being the "designer" in intelligent design theory.

That's a useful definition which I assert would narrow the field for possible designers to either outside the hypercube (God) or as cosmic ancestry (aliens, collective consciousness) with extra temporal dimension vision/mind.

[PatrickHenry]

That's a useful definition which I assert would narrow the field for possible designers to either outside the hypercube (God) or as cosmic ancestry (aliens, collective consciousness) with extra temporal dimension vision/mind.

I agree with js1138 that there's not much point in doing any designing unless the outcome is reasonably predictable.

The remarks of js1138, and Alamo-Girl's observation that the ability to predict the consequences of design pretty much rules out any natural designer (as I understand her remarks), would seem to demolish any pretentions of the ID movement that they are advocating anything but a religious doctrine.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

The remarks of js1138, and Alamo-Girl's observation that the ability to predict the consequences of design pretty much rules out any natural designer (as I understand her remarks), would seem to demolish any pretentions of the ID movement that they are advocating anything but a religious doctrine.

Er, my remarks specifically left open the possibility of the designer being cosmic ancestry or collective consciousness. The difference is that neither would be outside the hypercube, as God is, and thus would have to have an extra temporal dimension in vision or mind to know with certainty the outcome of designs or changes to designs.

[atlaw]

You seem to object to my comment that natural selection is only one piece (and, to my view, a still evolving piece) of the theoretical puzzle, calling it instead "an observed fact" (and adding the rather odd and off-point comment that it occurs whether mutation and variation are random or directed by God).

In a very rudimentary sense, adaptation and resulting reproductive success can, I suppose, be considered an observed "process," but I think it remains only partially understood, and it is not a singular evolutionary vehicle.

The effect of behavior and physiology on survival rates of more complex organisms is a very open field of inquiry (why the apparently "less fit" occasionally prosper, if you will), and I am not willing to concede that the so-called "aimless" process of genetic drift played a minor role in early speciation or plays an insignificant role today.

Frankly, we know very little about variation, adaptation, or speciation events in many of the most likely environments for rapid modification, hot springs, deep ocean vents, even salt and fresh water marshes. It may well turn out that our observations of natural selection (made in more convenient environments) are a kind of mid-point process between the biologically rudimentary and the biologically complex.

[PatrickHenry]

Er, my remarks specifically left open the possibility of the designer being cosmic ancestry or collective consciousness.

Yes, but to my primitive, 4-D brain, such a designer is difficult to distinguish from a deity. And I still don't see how he/she/it could foretell the future of its designs unless equipped with god-like omniscience. Besides, I think that proposing such a "designer" wouldn't help the ID folks in their quest to appear "scientific" enough to slip their conjectures into the classroom as a realistic alternative to evolution.

[Purple GOPer]

All five of his suggestions support the proposition "that Ohio not require students to know the scientific evidence and arguments for the theory of intelligent design, at least not yet." Hence the name of his web page Teach the Controversy.

As I said in my earlier post I am looking for the scientific benefits to high schoolers for teaching Intelligent Design not reasons why evolution may be wrong.

[Purple GOPer]

"Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

[atlaw]

Well, yeah, but servy's point is that definitions like this state the result but beg the question -- what is the process? My point is simply that the postulated mechanisms by which "heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" are neither easily summarized nor, as yet, definitively understood (which is not the same as saying that the mechanisms are not understood sufficiently to be considered theoretically viable).

[Purple GOPer]

I am not a scientist, but isn't the process genetics?

[atlaw]

In part, yes. The site I linked in post 630 has pretty good synopsis of the basic theoretical mechanisms.

[js1138]

Besides, I think that proposing such a "designer" wouldn't help the ID folks in their quest to appear "scientific" enough to slip their conjectures into the classroom as a realistic alternative to evolution.

I'm sure that the effects of allele change are predictible to some extent. Afer all there are companies making money in genetic engeneering.

I really have two questions: One is, why isn't this the central focus of ID research? The second, and more troubling is, how can you predict the effects on reproductive success in a complex ecosystem?

That is precisely the conumdrum that natural selection addresses. I agree with you that anything other than an omniscient (in all four dimensions) being could not make that prediction.

Now for the nitty gritty. Even if you have the computational horsepower to make predictions of reproductive success, it doesn't change the fact that natural selection works just like Darwin said it does.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Yes, but to my primitive, 4-D brain, such a designer is difficult to distinguish from a deity. And I still don't see how he/she/it could foretell the future of its designs unless equipped with god-like omniscience. Besides, I think that proposing such a "designer" wouldn't help the ID folks in their quest to appear "scientific" enough to slip their conjectures into the classroom as a realistic alternative to evolution.

There are so many things that our vision and minds cannot “see” but which are revealed by mathematics. That is at the root of the theory of the extra temporal dimension. But if such a dimension exists, our not being able to perceive it naturally would not make it any less true – nor would it be an appeal to omniscience outside of the hypercube, the geometry of space/time (including multi-verses and branes).

IOW, a cosmic ancestor designer who had the ability to see and think in the extra dimensions which are beyond our senses would be able to know in advance the consequences of his design without being outside of space/time.

Here’s more about that extra time dimension:

Physics News 347, November 19, 1997

SPARE TIME. Descartes gave us co-ordinate geometry, with its three spatial dimensions. Einstein put time on an equivalent footing, creating 4-dimensional spacetime. String theory added six more spatial dimensions, and M theory added yet one more for a total of eleven (see Update 329). Now Cumrun Vafa of Harvard has added still another----an extra element of time---to make the existing theories more compatible with each other. Because of possible side effects, such as faster-than-light travel or questionable causality (time would not be measured sequentially along an axis but would spread out into a plane), Vafa's "F Theory" has not found many adherents yet. (New Scientist, 1 November.)

Cumrun Vafa: Evidence for F-Theory (pdf)

Ebook: Strange Matters, Chapter 10, Page 248 excerpt (Two Timing Universe)

Two time dimensions are simply what you need to make sense out of certain versions of string theory, Vafa contends. Maybe a second time direction seems odd because nobody knows where to look for it—it might come into play only in strange places, perhaps at the center of black holes. So it was too soon, he said, to dismiss the notion that a second time dimension could somehow be real. “As to what that would mean,” says Vafa, “I could only say that time will tell.”

So far time hasn’t told anybody very much. The idea of a second time dimension hasn’t grabbed the spotlight among efforts to understand M theory and the relationship of space and time to reality. But the idea hasn’t gone away, either. Papers on the second time dimension still turn up from time to time—some advocating the idea, others critiquing it. (It is, after all, one of those ideas that might turn out to be wrong.)

If it’s not wrong, though, the key to understanding a second time dimension would be in figuring out why, if it exists, nobody has noticed it. And why it doesn’t mess up the world as we know it. For as University of Pennsylvania physicist Max Tegmark has pointed out, it’s hard to reconcile a second time dimension with the existence of life.

In a paper he published in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity, Tegmark pointed out that the existence of observers in the universe requires three qualities: complexity, stability, and predictability. That may explain why the universe has only three noticeable space dimensions. …

Personally, I find the objections to the second time dimension rather unscientific since it amounts to a refusal to look because all our 4 dimensionally limited vision and minds are able to perceive naturally is grounded in physical causality (cause/effect and timelines).

Here’s what additional dimensionality might be like if we could sense them:

The Curse of Dimensionality (pdf)

Naturally, an extra time dimension sensitive cosmic ancestor-designer would not preclude the existence of God who would be beyond the hyper-cube.

The fact of a beginning is the most clear scientific evidence that God exists. All modern cosmologies require there must be a beginning - either in tiers and hierarchies of multi-verses, inception of cyclic universes, collisions of branes - or good, old fashioned big bang inflationary theory. The bottom line is that since the 1960's we've known the universe is expanding, thus space/time is finite and had a beginning. Therefore there must have been an uncaused cause and the only possible candidate is God.

So naturally, whenever we speak of Designer - the most logical of the potential candidate designers for biological life (as with the universe) is God. The existence of cosmic ancestors and collective consciousness do not have any scientific evidence comparable to the fact of the beginning of space/time.

As a Christian, I know God exists. His son and I are on a first name basis. But on these threads, I try to speak as an objective third party academic to see the world through the eyes of intellectual agnostics.

[Alamo-Girl]

xzins, I wanted to bring js1138's post at 651 to your attention. The post brings the question into sharper focus as you requested.

[Doctor Stochastic]

One question might be: if an allele change would be beneficial according to the designer, would she cause that change to occur? Another would be: why were things designed to look as if they were cobbled together at random?

[marron]

This is not quite what is usually meant by fortelling the future, but without delving into the mechanics of space-time still it is possible to know the future.

The key is "will". I know the future because I am building it. I don't know every eventuality that will interfere with my plans, but I know that I won't let them stop me.

You can predict with some certainty that a house will someday appear at a given location, because you are going to buy the lot, and commission the construction. You don't necessarily know that this or that contractor will have what personnel problems, or material problems, but you know that you won't be deterred by any of that. You have a roll of plans, and you can predict that the result is going to bear some fair resemblance to what you have ordered, because you are going to see to it.

There is another kind of certainty with regard to the future, which is the certainty that comes from an understanding of the underlying principles. Certain kinds of actions will naturally yield certain kinds of consequences, and without knowing specifics you can predict general trend lines. You can afford to grant local autonomy, you can absorb or weather the unexpected, because in the overall scheme of things they won't change the outcome. The uncontrolled movements of individual boats will not affect the flow of a river, for example. The flow of the river affects but need not deter the determined captain.

So, the exertion of will, and the understanding of principles allows the future to be shaped and therefore known. It doesn't disallow the random, or the serendipitous, or the effects of competing wills. To use another metaphor, it is not necessary for a surfer to control the surf directly, to know that he is going ride the surf to shore. By acts of will and understanding, any cross-current can be endured, outlasted, or used to advantage. Else, you paddle out and go again, which according to scripture (and according to experience) God has done time and again.

[PatrickHenry]

IOW, a cosmic ancestor designer who had the ability to see and think in the extra dimensions which are beyond our senses would be able to know in advance the consequences of his design without being outside of space/time.

A-Girl, my cyber-passion for you is boundless, but there are times when I realize that we may not be perfectly suited for each another. As I read this post, I sense that you're going places where I just can't go. Alas, I've got limitations. So I'll just sit back and lurk for a while. [But I send 4-D hugs, as they're all I've got!]

[betty boop]

Dear Alamo-Girl, I’m way behind in my replies here, and may never catch up [just swamped at work, and also in my “moonlighting” activities, etc.]. I had some thoughts about StJacques’ comments about nominalism and whether some of our correspondents on this thread think and reply in this manner. That is, “are nominalists.” But I don’t think we’ve quite achieved clarity re: the meaning of nominalism yet.

As usual, I go straight to the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language for definitions: Nominalism is “the view which regards universals or abstract concepts as mere names without any corresponding reality.”

Which would instantly take geometry, algorithms, formulae of every description (e.g., even culinary recipes), universal laws, logic, human languages, scientific theories, etc., etc., right “off the table” — not to mention soul and spirit. Which to me is not an inviting prospect, assuming we-all are the least bit interested in studying Nature, or the universe, which seemingly includes “objects” of this kind.

The problem is, they are not tangible objects, such that you could physically measure. Yet science has no method and no language without these intangible objects.

So all I’ve got to say is, it doesn’t “pay” to be a nominalist. :^)

This recalls Tegmark’s observations respecting the “bird’s-eye” view, and the “frog’s view” — the bird hanging outside the 4D spacetime block that conditions human perception and explanation, and the frog moving along his path in 4D spacetime; and how Tegmark thinks this contrast is the same that obtains between Plato and Aristotle respectively, both of whom had valid approaches and methods to deal with the problem of revealing the laws of the Cosmos. Clearly, Plato was no nominalist; he is said to be the founder of philosophical realism. Aristotle, of course, was no nominalist either: He is often thought of as the first genuine scientist. Within that framework, one would have to place the nominalist as “off the scale” altogether: For in all probability, neither Plato nor Aristotle could give him hospitality: For the nominalist has no way to account for nor explain the empirical reality of his own existence and experience. And the reason for this is: He has detached his thinking from his experience. This strikes me as being a very dangerous procedure.

FWIW. Must get back to work. Meanwhile, I’m lurking away whenever I can, very much enjoying your conversations with js1138, StJacques, PatrickHenry, Nebullis. I’ll jump back in as soon as I can.

Thank you so much for your brilliant posts, A-G! Clearly, you are no nominalist.

[js1138]

...why were things designed to look as if they were cobbled together at random?

I personally agree with this, but it sounds a bit like why do things look like they were designed.

It seems pretty straightforward to ask people who believe in design to demonstrate that design is possible. If they claim the designer doesigne doesn't have to be God, then they are obligated to demonstrate that design is possible within the reality we inhabit. In other words, they are requited to do the same kind of science that people in other difficult disciplines are required to do. This could include meteorologists, experimental psychologists, ecologists, linguists. ID needs to accept the need to establish predictive relationships. That needs to be their focus.

Of course, mainstream biology is already doing this, particularly in agriculture and medicine, but that's another story.

I will be honest about my expectations. I do not believe it is possible to predict emergent properties. I do not believe it is possible to predict very far into the future of ecosystems. I do not believe allele changes are designed with foreknowledge of their effects. But I'm willing to risk being wrong.

[Doctor Stochastic]

There are many so-called deterministic systems that are non-predictable. I posted several, (ball moving in a circle with uncertainty in velocity and Brownian motion, earlier) and there is some reason to believe that the solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations during the onset of turbulence are non-predictable. QM is inherently non-deterministic.

Some rather artificial systems show funny things too. The game of Go as played on a 19x19 board is quite different from the same game on a 9x9 board. (I don't know if more properties emerge on a 1009 by 1009 board though. It would amusing to find out.)

Even the primes seem to be rather unpredictable. Given a prime P, there is no (simple closed form) formula for the next prime. There are statistical theorems about the density of primes, etc., but not much else.

Of course, probabilistic methods allow some handle on most of these things. These methods also give us a bound on what cannot be known aprori.

[TChris]

Darwin wrote about the origin of species...

I think some of the current critics of his work more accurately portray his work as explaining the survival of species, which is fine. The fossil evidence simply hasn't supported the predicted existence of species gradually evolving into other species. It just doesn't work.

Modern true believers try to tweak and repair the theory to fit the evidence, but more and more scientists are declaring the theory beyond repair.