[Louis Foxwell]

My hypothesis, although I have the distinct imnpression I am casting pearls before the swine...
Evolution is predicated on an hypothesis that change occurs from less complicated to more complicated. If this, or some version of this, is true then there must be some principle that allows it to be so. Otherwise it could be as easily said that the simple leads to the complex which leads to the simple, ie random change.
Why is it that the notion of higher and lower orders is predicated? On what basis is this apparent natural phenomenon determined? This is an area of research that has gone unexamined.
I propose that it be examined to determine laws of nature which seem to impose order on existence. Why should there be order? Why not rampant disorder?
If order, then, and more so, if processional - lower to higher - order there must be determinative dynamics that make it so. What is the nature of these dynamics?
This line of reasoning from natural observation must necessarily discard random selection or random processes as not capable of explaining phenomenon.
If I may jump to a possible conclusion, ID is a perfectly legitimate proposition to explain the phenomenological issues raised above.

[RogueIsland]

Evolution is predicated on an hypothesis that change occurs from less complicated to more complicated.

This is not true. There is no assumption in the Theory of Evolution that any given change will result in a more complicated organism. In fact, it's entirely possible that particular niches are best filled by simpler organisms with narrower specialization, and redundant or overly-complex systems are "evolved out" of the mix for that niche.

[betty boop]

Really great post Amos. You look to the fundamental logic. Not a whole lot of people do that these days. Thank you.

[js1138]

Evolution is predicated on an hypothesis that change occurs from less complicated to more complicated.

In on sentence you have moved into the ranks of the the truly, inexcusably ignorant. Why do you embarrass yourself posting such juvenile errors?

[js1138]

Before you argue that the direction of evolution is toward the more complex, ask yourself what is the dominant mode of life. What class of organism is the most numerous and comprises the overwhelming bulk of biomass? What class of organism is overwhelmingly the most successful by any objective standard -- numerous, adaptive, indestructible?

[occamsrapier]

"Pearls before swine" But I thought you were above insults?

Your post is not a hypothesis, it is at best a question. But really it is the ID movement in a nutshell.

But let me go through it line by line, so that when I say this is an empty piece of nonsense idiocy, you won't think I'm just calling names.

"Evolution is predicated on an hypothesis that change occurs from less complicated to more complicated."

Not really, in fact evolution makes no claims about orders of complexity, let alone being predicated on them. Evolution is complexity neutral. There are principles that evolution postulates drive variation in organism, and complexity sometiems reuslts from those variations. But evolution says it is equally likely for things to become less complex. Animals that move underground gradually lose their sight, because sight is not needed in the darkness, and because sight organs are susceptable to disease and injury, so to begin with you preconcieved premise is wrong, and calls into question the expertise you avowed earlier when you told me to look into evolution. If you had looked into evolution, you would not have made this statement.

"If this, or some version of this, is true then there must be some principle that allows it to be so. Otherwise it could be as easily said that the simple leads to the complex which leads to the simple, ie random change."

There is a mechanism, it's called mutation plus selection.

"Why is it that the notion of higher and lower orders is predicated?"

This sentence is meaningless. Things have to be predicated on something. Perhaps you meant predicted. I'll assume so for the next sentence.

"This is an area of research that has gone unexamined. "

Actually no, all aspects of the generation of order in natural structures are under intense scientific scrutiny, and (you know its comming) all those scientists (more than 99%) agree that mutation plus natural selection is the best theory yet to explain them. The idea that there is no research is laughable, and again points out that you seem VERY ignorant of something you feel just fine talking about with authority.

"I propose that it be examined to determine laws of nature which seem to impose order on existence. Why should there be order? Why not rampant disorder?
If order, then, and more so, if processional - lower to higher - order there must be determinative dynamics that make it so. What is the nature of these dynamics?"

So far you have proposed a bunch of inaccurate (sometimes laughably so) assumptions. In the above paragraph, you then ask a series of questions. All of these are good questions, but NONE of them is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a prediction, based on observation that can be subjected to verification through experimentation and further observation. But if that description is a little too vague for you, I'll make it easier, no hypothesis ends in a question mark.

"This line of reasoning from natural observation must necessarily discard random selection or random processes as not capable of explaining phenomenon."

Again another assumption, but still not a hypothesis. Also this assumtion is flatly wrong. Order arises from choas all the time. Randomness often makes ordered structures, the face on Mars, bucky balls, the fact that both Lincoln's and Kennedy's assassins had three names, all are random occurences of order, or as we call it coincedence. It's funny that english has a whole word for something you think can't happen. Snowflakes, for example, are ordered structures that come from random forces (cold, wind, crystal dynamics). Unless you are willing to say that God or some other unknown, superpowerful entity designs every snowflake. If you want to say that go ahead, but in science you need some kind of evidence for that, and since we can see the random forces at work(observe snowflake formation in a lab where the same forces yield different flakes), you will basically need a videotape of God chisleing little snowflakes.

The assumption that order cannot arise out of randomness is disproven everytime you play cards. All hands are dealt randomly, but you can still get four of a kind of a straight flush. Or are you saying God deals every hand of cards as well. Because you can say that, but that doesn't make it science. In the same way as all of inquisition era science was preoccupied with trying to find how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, a most antiscientific endeavor.

And before you throw thermodynamics at me, please stop. Don't make a fool of yourself. Entropy has no bearing over this. Entropy or the tendencay towards disorder has a very specific scientific meaning. It really stands for energy (heat) in space. As space increases, entropy (disorder) goes up if energy is constant. By this measure, the observed expansion of the universe means that all of the molecules on earth could line up in a picture of Elvis, and overall the universe would still be trending towards disorder and increasing entropy. Of course that doesn't really mater because the Earth is not a closed system and it's getting energy from the sun all the time. Put energy into a system and you entropy goes down; that is the definition of entropy.

"If I may jump to a possible conclusion, ID is a perfectly legitimate proposition to explain the phenomenological issues raised above."

It might be if you proposed a hypothesis. You haven't yet, so I don't know what ID is when you refer to it. That's how science works. Just saying "I think it's ID" which the close reader will see is all you said in this post, is meaningless. Provide a description for ID, a mechanism, empirical evidence supporting your conclusions, in a word provide SOMETHING. Just saying "I belive it is ID" is not ANYTHING.

So to summarize, you said a bunch of stuff as given, that was simply wrong. You asked a lot of questions, and then you said ID did it.

That is the ID movement in a nutshel. Make false attacks on real science, claim that there are deep unprobed mysteries of the universe, and then instead of probing the mysteries, as real scientists do, leap straight to the conclusion phase, SKIPPING THE SCIENCE PART (observe, hypothesis, experiment, verify). Now why on Earth would I have contempt for that?

Grade: F

Don't beat yourself up over it. The whole world saw Behe fail miserably to answer the same challenge last week. The entire ID community has failed to deliver a hypothesis for a decade. That means ID is not science. PERIOD.

You can't put it into science class until you have something.

Please feel free to give it another shot.

[From many - one.]

"Evolution is predicated on an hypothesis that change occurs from less complicated to more complicated...."

Completely incorrect.

[cornelis]

Evolution is predicated on an hypothesis that change occurs from less complicated to more complicated

Good points and good questions. Thanks for thinking.

There is no "fitness," as Darwin called it, without conditions and elements that make biological motion take place toward increasing order, rather than decreasing order.

That independent machines survive in order to be present at the moment of crucial evolution is certainly not hocus pocus.

[Roots]

Evolution is predicated on an hypothesis that change occurs from less complicated to more complicated.

In actuality, entropy, or disorderedness, must always increase. The problem with your view is that it is limited to half of the system, earth. If the simple leads to the complex, then something else must become more random, and so it does with the highly exergonic reactions of the sun, which transmits this energy to earth. The total system includes the sun, and the total system is that of increasing disorder.

It is through this increasing disorder that one part if the system, the earth, is allowed to even express forms of increasing order - allowing "random change" in the first place. It is survival of the fittest that dictates what stays and what goes during these random "ups and downs" of orderness. This random change occurs all the time and organisms, through self-interest, have evolved extensive systems to counter entropy and continue their own organization at the expense of another. On a smaller scale, biochemically, we breakdown other molecules to ensure ours remain intact, now and in future generations.

ID is an illegitimate excuse to explain the undiscovered (which, in this case, already can be answered); your greatest folly in supporting ID is assuming the undiscovered is indeterminable and running to your "god" to fill in the blanks. Scientists don't want your religious "fillers", we'll discover it eventually if it hasn't been explained already.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the pings, betty boop and Amos!

I’m coming in late to the discussion but here are some points I’d like to raise in defense of Amos the Prophet and perhaps pave the way for a more helpful debate for the Lurkers:

1. Randomness

What we declare is “random” in space/time may not be random in the "system" since we do not yet know what the “system” is. It would be more correct to say “apparently random”.

For instance, an additional time-like dimension would allow for all particles in 4D space/time to be multiply imaged up to 10⁸⁰ times from as little as a single particle in the fifth dimension. Here’s a recent discussion for more on the mysteries of mass.

2. Mutations

The formulation “mutation – natural selection > species” does not capture the full knowledge of the subject at this time. More often around here people are using the formulation ”variation – natural selection > species” which allows for autonomous biological self-organizing complexity (Rocha, Kauffman, et al) as well as variation caused by intelligence, e.g. selection of mates.

3. Complexity

There is little agreement on the measure of complexity to be used in discussing biological systems. But at bottom there are only two types: least description and least time. Before we can pursue a discussion of complexity, we need to agree to model so that we are all on the "same page". Here are some choices:

Kolmogorov = “the minimum number of bits into which a string can be compressed without losing information.”

Cellular Automata = beginning with an infinite grid of cells, each in a finite number of states with any finite number of dimensions – rules are applied within the cells such that a whole new grid results from each generation of rules being applied

Self-organizing Complexity = emphasis on self (in biological systems) – the system structures itself over time without explicit external pressure or involvement from outside the system. As the system evolves, it exhibits a hierarchy of emergent system properties. Hence, the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts, perhaps even something “new” requiring new language to describe it. Intelligence is often seen as an emergent property.

Functional complexity = for a system function, an assessment for which the environmental (input) variables have a complexity of C(e), and the actions of the system have a complexity of C(a), then the complexity of specification of the function of the system is: C(f)=C(a) 2 ^C(e)

Time complexity or the algorithmic complexity of a discrete function = O(n) where n is the size of the input to a function. It is a statement of linear complexity, like mowing a lawn – the bigger the lawn, the longer it takes to mow it. An example of a logarithmic form would be looking for a number in the phone book. You’d open it in the middle, and then open one side or the other and so forth to narrow the search to the name of the party you want to call.

Irreducible Complexity = “a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning”

Specified Complexity = based on the notion that life is both complex and specified. “A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex (i.e., it conforms to an independently given pattern but is simple). A long sequence of random letters is complex without being specified (i.e., it requires a complicated instruction-set to characterize but conforms to no independently given pattern). A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified.”

Metatransition = “Consider a system S of any kind. Suppose that there is a way to make some number of copies from it, possibly with variations. Suppose that these systems are united into a new system S' which has the systems of the S type as its subsystems, and includes also an additional mechanism which controls the behavior and production of the S-subsystems. Then we call S' a metasystem with respect to S, and the creation of S' a metasystem transition. As a result of consecutive metasystem transitions a multilevel structure of control arises, which allows complicated forms of behavior. “

4. Probability

We also need to agree to terms to discuss probability or agree not to raise it at all. There are basically two types – one which looks at simple combinations and the other which considers each possibility as being more or less likely to occur (Bayesian probability).

Correspondents on both sides tend to use some “sleight of hand” when discussing probability by asserting combinations when it suits their prejudice.

An atheist for instance would lean heavily on a combination - 1 in 10⁸⁰ as the probability of this particular universe in a chaotic inflation or multi-verse model.

A theist for instance would lean heavily on a combination – 10³⁹⁰ as the probability of a typical protein (300 amino acids with 20 common amino acids in life).

5. Intelligent Cause

We also need to understand the terms when discussing “intelligent cause”. There are two types: phenomenon and agent.

Phenomenon would include both emergent properties of self-organizing complexity as well as fractal intelligence (self-similar).

Agents would include God, aliens, collective consciousness, Gaia, etc.

6. The Intelligent Design Hypothesis

We also need to agree that the intelligent design hypothesis is not the same thing as the intelligent design movement. The intelligent design hypothesis is that "certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection."

7. Correlations

Finally we need to all agree that correlation is not causation.

That we notice a bunch of storks in a town at the same time a bunch of babies are born does not establish a causal link.

Likewise we cannot say that intelligent design is a Christian theory because of the correlation. Likewise we cannot say that evolution is an atheist theory because of the correlation.

IMHO, if we can agree to these terms and make a choice of complexity (and leave probabilities off the table) - then we can have a debate which may be useful to Lurkers.