Another definition of ID

Mutually exclusive options, of course?

You'll notice you-know-who made a comment to the Waco Tribune article at the link

Also, I found it interesting that rather than Marks himself commenting in this article, he speaks solely through his lawyer-- it seems like nearly half the article is composed of quotes from said lawyer. Perhaps I'm missing something, but for what reason is Marks involving his lawyer in all this?

Perhaps I’m missing something, but for what reason is Marks involving his lawyer in all this?

In a story on the same topic in the "Daily Orange, the independent student newspaper of Syracuse, NY," (http://media.www.dailyorange.com/media/storage/paper522/news/2007/09/10/News/Baylor.Forces.Professor.To.Shut.Down.Site-2957792.shtml) the reporter states:

"Intelligent design is a controversial theory of evolution."

I have written to them in an attempt to correct this misapprehension, recommending that their reporter and readers might be better informed by looking at Barbara Forrests "Understanding the intelligent design creationist movement: Its true nature and goals." (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/advocacy/id_creationist_movement/)

This kind of censorship is disgraceful. Why shut down evolutionary informatics labs and websites? If they're wrong, as you so stringently claim, then it will all fizzle out. Why shut them down and prevent their research?

It's very sad when so-called "science" sinks to this level.

I meant to say "as you stridently claim."

Hey we might as well be in the old Soviet Union, where scientists discovered what they were commanded to discover.

American science is becoming totalitarian. Truly disgraceful.

Why shut them down and prevent their research?

In what way is their "research" being prevented, exactly? The website is not shut down, it is still up, just not on Baylor servers.

Baylor is trying to prevent the appearance of having endorsed what Marks and Dembski are doing; even if Baylor has gone overboard in that, it does not seem that Marks and Dembski are being hindered in the slightest way in writing or "researching" whatever they want.

American science is becoming totalitarian. Truly disgraceful.

"...an intelligent cause or God."???

Wait a minute. I thought God was intelligent. But I guess not, otherwise it would be "...an intelligent cause like God."???

"Are you done now?"

No I am not done. This is outrageous. If you aren't afraid of evolutionary informatics, why don't you leave them alone? If their research is pointless, why try so hard to block it?

Bad ideas die on their own, you don't have to kill them. Why are you trying to kill these ideas? You're afraid of them, afraid they might be good ideas, so you want to block the research and kill the ideas.

Science is not totalitarian. This is not science.

I have written to them in an attempt to correct this misapprehension...

— Paul Burnett

This is outrageous

why try so hard to block it

you're confused, as usual.

anyone here trying to block any kind of actual scientific research from being published?

anyone?

uh, we've actually been requesting that you morons actually DO some science for decades (creationists) and years (IDiots).

It wasn't us who scuttled any potential research efforts coming from this fictitious "institute".

there simply weren't any to begin with.

Bad ideas die on their own

again, not true at all, especially when they are deliberately maintained through the use of obfuscation and lies, as creationism is.

creationism is an demonstrably bad idea, especially when trying to shove it into the framework of real science, and yet it's been around for hundreds of years.

go figure.

now you know why PT exists:

because bad ideas DON'T die on their own.

they often need a big shove.

Bad ideas die on their own, you don’t have to kill them.

— realpc

yup, that's indeed the flip side.

of course, someone suffering from such a debilitating mental disorder as REALPC won't get the irony in his statement.

even when you point it out to him.

Bad ideas die on their own, you don’t have to kill them.

Science is not totalitarian. This is not science.

Raven,

Regarding your comment #205954, maybe I misunderstood your point, but Baylor IS a Christian university. Baylor is affiliated with the Baptist General Convention of Texas, and proudly avers that it is "The largest Baptist university in the world."

No I am not done. This is outrageous. If you aren’t afraid of evolutionary informatics, why don’t you leave them alone? If their research is pointless, why try so hard to block it?

Don’t worry, tho, there’s always Liberty University and Bob Jones.

IIRC, Marks' lawyer, Gilmore, was also Dembski's lawyer back during the Polanyi Center debacle. Maybe next time he can get the Thomas More Law Center to pitch in, given that they did such a good job on Kitzmiller v. Dover.

realpc:

I'm here -- a real scientist waiting for a paper to review by anybody on ID. [Head in hand, fingers drumming endlessly on table. Waiting....waiting...waiting....snore....] Bring 'em on! In fact, a number of folks here are real scientists waiting to see such a thing. And when I get the paper, I will review it, offering my extremely candid point of view about the weaknesses, flaws, inconsistencies, inaccuracies and so on, of the paper. Just like I do for every paper and grant that I get to review. Hell, I've even trashed papers by my friends (just like they do to my papers). I will send my comments anonymously to the editor, who will forward them to the authors. The authors will then address the comments, pointing out where I am wrong, correcting the paper where I am correct. The editor will send it out for re-review. If the reviewers and authors cannot come to agreement, then the editorial staff (associate editor and editor, usually), will review the paper, reviews and replies and decide on whether the paper is appropriate and worthy of publication. Happens all the time. In fact, I know of a couple of papers that I recommended for rejection that got published anyway. At that point, people will read the paper, and either accept, ignore or rebut it. It happens all the time. Science marches on in an endless maelstrom of debate, contention, and final grudging agreement.

But from ID -- nothing. Nada. Zip. Just an endless diatribe. A verbal vomitus of whining, bitching and complaining about how repressed they are. It's unfair. Nobody likes them. Nobody respects them. We just try to censor them. Yet even then, with all of that, they still get their message out to the public, and don't even try to submit to the scientific journals. "It's because they're always rejected, so they don't try anymore." Bullshit. Their ideas suck and are indefensible in a careful, measured venue like a submitted paper. They can't even stand up to cursory scrutiny. And when examined closely, they're so bad that the reviewers get pissed-off that the editor would waste their time with such claptrap.

The sole exceptions are papers published in special creationist journals just for such crap, and the single thing "edited" by Sterberg in an affair that made an open mockery of the review process (but provide many hours on Monty-Pythonesque images of "help, help, I'm bein' repressed").

Now they bitch and whine that some funding scam is being censored. Give me a break. In my discipline, a huge proportion of papers come from folks who have no funding at all. And yet somehow, some way, they still manage to make a useful contribution, and defend their views, even when savagely controversial.

Censorship my ass. Propaganda pure and simple.

Intelligent cause or God? Well that's ironic...

Me thinketh realpc doth protesteth too much..eth.

What is he bitching about again?

Oh that's right, the tiny sliver of respectability a real lab in a real university would give his political movement has been shown the door.

boo hoo hoo.

What do you do for an encore realpc?

Let me guess, consult Allah and fly into a tall building?
Must be that time of the year again.

This kind of censorship is disgraceful. Why shut down evolutionary informatics labs and websites?

— realpc

If they’re wrong, as you so stridently [incorporating correction from following post] claim, then it will all fizzle out. Why shut them down and prevent their research?

It’s very sad when so-called “science” sinks to this level.

“Are you done now?” No I am not done. This is outrageous. If you aren’t afraid of evolutionary informatics, why don’t you leave them alone?

— realpc

If their research is pointless, why try so hard to block it?

Bad ideas die on their own, you don’t have to kill them.

Why are you trying to kill these ideas? You’re afraid of them, afraid they might be good ideas, so you want to block the research and kill the ideas.

Science is not totalitarian. This is not science.

To all except REALPC:

You're all falling (again) into the trap of fighting the fight on his terms...

I re(re)iterate: the best strategy is not to attempt point-by-point re(re)buttals of the same old ID talking points; it is to point out that postulating a designer only begs the question: "What is the origin of this 'designer'?" The response always consists of hasty footfalls and a door slamming.

Bad ideas die on their own, you don’t have to kill them.

"We know them to be wrong."

Oh really. You know the computer scientists and mathematicians at evolutionary informatics are WRONG. They are wrong about everything, all their ideas are wrong? And you know it?

They should stop their work because you and other neo-Darwinists have already decided your theory is RIGHT. Therefore, any opposing theory must be wrong. There is no need to study the opposing theories or allow them to be explored.

Stifle them. They are wrong. They'll start making people wonder if the universe is intelligent, when you KNOW that it's mindless and random.

Stamp out all contradicting theories. Yours is correct, and you KNOW it.

Quite the contrary. Science operates in an environment of intellectual honesty and openness. Some say this is necessary for it to progress. Whenever a discredited (and demonstrably wrong) idea is being proclaimed as actual science, it should be silenced.

— Nigel D

Stamp out all contradicting theories. Yours is correct, and you KNOW it.

— realpc

Regarding your comment #205954, maybe I misunderstood your point, but Baylor IS a Christian university. Baylor is affiliated with the Baptist General Convention of Texas, and proudly avers that it is “The largest Baptist university in the world.”

Stamp out all contradicting theories.

To all except REALPC: You’re all falling (again) into the trap of fighting the fight on his terms…

— djlactin

RealPC,

The reason we already know that they are wrong is that they were not silenced. Some of us already read the papers and found them to lack any original research. They amount to nothing more than restating long discredited nonsense. There is no possibility of them ever being right if they never do any real research.

By the way, if the papers do not pass peer-review that will not be censorship either. They are still free to publish in their own journal any time they want. What they don't get is the appearance of respectability if they don't do any real science.

Now, about that designer. If life is too complex to have arisen and diversified without intelligent input, where did the designer come from? How could something so complex poof out of nothing?

Comment #205935 Posted by realpc on September 10, 2007 6:06 PM (e) | kill This kind of censorship is disgraceful. Why shut down evolutionary informatics labs and websites? If they’re wrong, as you so stringently claim, then it will all fizzle out.

http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php

Good. I hope they have plenty of funding.

Good. I hope they have plenty of funding.

Notice how RealRidiculousNewAgePillock never even pretends to respond to the numerous corrections his posts get here? Yet more proof, as if any were still needed, that he is unhinged, unengaged, and uneducable.

Stifle them. They are wrong. They’ll start making people wonder if the universe is intelligent, when you KNOW that it’s mindless and random. Stamp out all contradicting theories. Yours is correct, and you KNOW it.

How much funding does it take to not put out a scientific journal?

Comment #206127 Posted by realpc on September 11, 2007 6:30 AM (e) .......They’ll start making people wonder if the universe is intelligent, when you KNOW that it’s mindless and random.......

realpc,

PCID, a quarterly journal, had the last issue published in November of 2005. No one tried to shut it down. It just died a natural death.

RealPC:

You just don't get it, do you? Nobody is stamping anything out. That would be like shooting a dead horse. ID is based on statements that are factually incorrect. Empirically wrong. Demonstrably not true. Period. It's a joke dude. The reason real scientists don't research it is because they HAVE researched it! Sadly for you, they didn't need any grant money, or even a cup of coffee, because the crap that ID people say is so patently false that it's screamingly obvious to anyone not wearing ideological blinders. We are all waiting for something new, interesting or intriguing to come from them, but it's the same crap over and over. You may as well scream discrimination for not funding flat-earthers. You just can't seem to wrap your brain around that fact, can you? Please, instead of sulking and whining and bitching and moaning, why don't you present something concrete in support of ID?

I am surprised by the amount of support that the Panda thumb community is showing toward Dr. Marks.

This is shameless censorship of a highly regarded and published professor. I encourage you to go to the website http://www.evolutionaryinformatics.org/ and read the publications for yourself to see what the controversy is all about.

Dr. Marks silence in the news is necessary due that fact that this issue might expand into litigation. He is frustrated that Baylor would do something like this and suppress research rather than letting the scientific community peer review and decide. Thats why I encourage you to go and read the papers on the website, and review and comment on them for yourself.

I am very proud of the way my father has handled this situation so far, and I know he will see it to the end.

The Son of Dr. Robert J. Marks II,

Jeremiah Marks

I whole-heartedly support Evolutionary Informatics. Of course, the Panda's Thumb community doesn't exactly consider me one of them.

I encourage you to go to the website http://www.evolutionaryinformatics.org/ and read the publications for yourself to see what the controversy is all about.

Dr. Marks silence in the news is necessary due that fact that this issue might expand into litigation.

This is shameless censorship of a highly regarded and published professor. I encourage you to go to the website http://www.evolutionaryinformatics.org/ and read the publications for yourself to see what the controversy is all about.

Wikipedia: Censorship is defined as the removal and/or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body.

Dr. Marks silence in the news is necessary due that fact that this issue might expand into litigation.

Oleg, read the other two. You take one aspect out of the paper and then dismiss the entire premise. Yes, Dr. Robert Marks has had an impressive career. What I don't understand is why you feel his career is being thrown away when he decides to focus it on something that give him meaning.

I believe that anybody that has commented on this forum would go to same lengths if their institution suppressed their research in evolution, even to litigation.

At 3:00 the Baylor Faculty senate is voting on whether they support Baylor or Robert Marks regarding the ID website. It will be an interesting move on Baylor's part.

Last comment: I am not sure how to prove I am the son of Dr. Robert Marks II!

Last comment: I am not sure how to prove I am the son of Dr. Robert Marks II!

I believe that anybody that has commented on this forum would go to same lengths if their institution suppressed their research in evolution, even to litigation.

I am not sure how to prove I am the son of Dr. Robert Marks II!

— Jeremiah Marks

Kinda ironic that Joshua Marks background is in red...

I do have a brother and a sister!

They wouldn't be able to toss him out even if they tried. Thats the beauty of tenure!

Yes, I am very familiar with Bill Dembski and know him personally. And honestly if you ever met him you would like him even if you disagree with what his work and what he stands for.

My father is doing this because he believes in it not necessarily because it is the popular opinion. And I believe you would most likely do the same if evolution was in this position.

I completely disagree that this is not legitimate research. And honestly the more I read the more people say that the research is illegitimate because it is associated Bill.

And honestly the more I read the more people say that the research is illegitimate because it is associated Bill.

I completely disagree that this is not legitimate research.

Dr. Marks silence in the news is necessary due that fact that this issue might expand into litigation.

Where’s Marks in all of this?

The pod people are holding him captive until his replacement is ready.

I have little doubt at this point.

I mean, look at most of the creationists who appear on this forum...

unable to do anything but recursively argue the same points over and over again, regardless of what responses are given.

they MUST have been replaced by pod people.

What I don’t understand is why you feel his career is being thrown away when he decides to focus it on something that give him meaning.

He is frustrated that Baylor would do something like this and suppress research rather than letting the scientific community peer review and decide. Thats why I encourage you to go and read the papers on the website, and review and comment on them for yourself.

Laser, in reply to your comment #206132:

That's a good point. Just because I think the lies should be silenced, doesn't mean they are being silenced.

“We know them to be wrong.” Oh really. You know the computer scientists and mathematicians at evolutionary informatics are WRONG. They are wrong about everything, all their ideas are wrong? And you know it?

— realpc

They should stop their work because you and other neo-Darwinists have already decided your theory is RIGHT.

Therefore, any opposing theory must be wrong. There is no need to study the opposing theories or allow them to be explored.

Stifle them. They are wrong.

They’ll start making people wonder if the universe is intelligent, when you KNOW that it’s mindless and random.

Stamp out all contradicting theories. Yours is correct, and you KNOW it.

Well it looks like realpc and Jerimiah Marks have failed to stamp out dissenting voices. What's next? Full blown schizophrenia? No no no the voices, the voices.

But all is not lost Jerry and Real, now that the scourge of democracy is almost dealt with blasphemy is making a comeback.

Comment #206175 Posted by realpc on September 11, 2007 8:56 AM (e) | kill http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php Good. I hope they have plenty of funding.

Comment #206247 Posted by Oleg Tchernyshyov on September 11, 2007 12:18 PM (e) | kill realpc, PCID, a quarterly journal, had the last issue published in November of 2005. No one tried to shut it down. It just died a natural death.

"No. MET is consistent with all of the data. We know that for a fact. No credible competing theory exists. We also know that to be a fact."

MET fails to explain evolution. Although it is the only theory currently accepted by mainstream biology, that does not make it correct.

MET essentially says nothing. We know there has been evolution, mutations and selection. That does not allow us to assume evolution can be entirely explained by mutations and selection.

MET requires a giant leap of faith. ID appeals to the common sense of the common person -- that should not count for or against it. MET defies common sense and mathematical probability -- that should not count for or against it.

But we have two theories that are equally shy on evidence. Should we accept one just because it is compatible with materialism, and reject the other merely because it is compatible with spiritual beliefs?

I think we need evidence. MET doesn't have it. Let the ID researchers do their work. And encourage the MET researchers to defend their theory with science, not philosophy.

But we have two theories that are equally shy on evidence.

— realpc

"ID is not a theory. It makes no predictions. All it says is “evolution doesn’t work, hence design.”"

ID does NOT say evolution doesn't work. It says evolution is somehow intelligent and purposeful.

We can say that evolution is real, and evolution is natural, without going on to say evolution can be entirely explained by random mutations and natural selection.

without going on to say evolution can be entirely explained by random mutations and natural selection.

MET defies common sense and mathematical probability

A year from now you will still be claiming that probability studies have shown the whole evolution thing to be impossible.

Common sense says that a plant or animal will be quite similar to its recent ancestors of the same gender.

Evolution agrees with that, whereas non-evolutionary origin models require multiple violations of that common sense principle.

Henry

ID does NOT say evolution doesn’t work. It says evolution is somehow intelligent and purposeful.

Realpc: ID does NOT say evolution doesn’t work. It says evolution is somehow intelligent and purposeful.

ID does NOT say evolution doesn’t work. It says evolution is somehow intelligent and purposeful.

— realpc

“No. MET is consistent with all of the data. We know that for a fact. No credible competing theory exists. We also know that to be a fact.”

— realpc

MET fails to explain evolution.

Although it is the only theory currently accepted by mainstream biology, that does not make it correct.

MET essentially says nothing.

We know there has been evolution, mutations and selection. That does not allow us to assume evolution can be entirely explained by mutations and selection.

MET requires a giant leap of faith.

ID appeals to the common sense of the common person – that should not count for or against it.

MET defies common sense and mathematical probability – that should not count for or against it.

But we have two theories that are equally shy on evidence.

Should we accept one just because it is compatible with materialism, and reject the other merely because it is compatible with spiritual beliefs?

I think we need evidence.

MET doesn’t have it.

Let the ID researchers do their work.

And encourage the MET researchers to defend their theory with science,

not philosophy.

“No. MET is consistent with all of the data. We know that for a fact. No credible competing theory exists. We also know that to be a fact.”

— realpc

MET fails to explain evolution.

Although it is the only theory currently accepted by mainstream biology, that does not make it correct.

MET essentially says nothing.

We know there has been evolution, mutations and selection. That does not allow us to assume evolution can be entirely explained by mutations and selection.

MET requires a giant leap of faith.

ID appeals to the common sense of the common person – that should not count for or against it.

MET defies common sense and mathematical probability – that should not count for or against it.

But we have two theories that are equally shy on evidence.

Should we accept one just because it is compatible with materialism, and reject the other merely because it is compatible with spiritual beliefs?

I think we need evidence.

MET doesn’t have it.

Let the ID researchers do their work.

And encourage the MET researchers to defend their theory with science,

not philosophy.

realPC wrote:

"ID does NOT say evolution doesn’t work. It says evolution is somehow intelligent and purposeful."

Actually it is hard to say what ID says, but one thing many ID proponents seem to say is that evolution by random mutation and natural selection cannot adequately account for the diversity of life on planet earth. They therefore conclude that something else, perhaps an intelligent designer, is necessary to account for the diversity of life. That does not mean that "evolution is somehow intelligent and purposeful". The claim is that evolution is inadequate as an explanation. The claim is that something other than evolution is needed. Of course, IMHO that assertation is unfounded, but unfounded or not the claim is not that "evolution is somehow intelligent and purposeful". That would not be evolution. That would be something different.

For example, if I genetically engineered corn and planted it in the fields that would be intelligent and purposeful. The genetic engineering would not be evolution, it would be intervention by an intelligent agent with a specific goal. If the corn were released into the wild it would still be subject to natural selection, but that still wouldn't make the engineering evolution. Likewise, nonrandom mutations could be induced and selected on, but the production of those mutations would still be intelligent intervention and not evolution.

Of course, this has been pointed out to realPC many times already. Why he refuses to acknowlede these facts is unknown. This may be purposeful but it certainly is not intelligent.

D'oh! Sorry, folks, that was a double post. Curse these browser errors, (at work I am forced to use IE for the interweb).

one thing many ID proponents seem to say is that evolution by random mutation and natural selection cannot adequately account for the diversity of life on planet earth. They therefore conclude that something else, perhaps an intelligent designer, is necessary to account for the diversity of life. That does not mean that “evolution is somehow intelligent and purposeful”. The claim is that evolution is inadequate as an explanation. The claim is that something other than evolution is needed.

"ID does not deny evolution. It does not say there is an intelligent designer"

Errrr.....what?

No two ID proponents are exactly alike...

I will speak for myself and, I think, for many other IDists.

ID says that RM + NS cannot account for the origin of new species.

RM + NS cannot add information or complexity.

ID does not deny evolution. It does not say there is an intelligent designer.

ID merely says that something about nature, and natural evolution, seems to demonstrate some kind of intelligence and purpose.

ID is concerned with the origin of new species.

There is no evidence that a new species can originate by RM + NS.

RM + NS is the basic mechanism of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism.

We know that RM occurs, and that NS occurs. But we have no evidence that RM + NS gives rise to new species, new information.

Another problem for MET is the origin of life.

There is no evidence that life can originate by random processes.

As Dawkins says, the origin of life by random processes is nearly impossible (but it only had to happen once).

ID can more easily explain the origin of life – ...

...if there is intelligence and purpose in nature, or some kind of drive toward increasing complexity, we would expect life to originate.

It does not in any way claim that natural evolution cannot explain the origin of life or new species.

It merely says that life, and natural evolution, do not appear to be accidental.

ID does not deny evolution. It does not say there is an intelligent designer.

— realpc

No two ID proponents are exactly alike, just as no two neo-Darwinists are exactly alike. I will speak for myself and, I think, for many other IDists.

realPC wrote:

"ID is concerned with the origin of new species. There is no evidence that a new species can originate by RM + NS. All of the pro-MET evidence is for evolution, and for adaptation by RM + NS. None of the evidence shows that a new species can be created by RM + NS. RM + NS is the basic mechanism of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. We know that RM occurs, and that NS occurs. But we have no evidence that RM + NS gives rise to new species, new information."

Of course we do. Ignoring that evidence is idiotic. Ignoring all of the other mechanisms can cause speciation is ignorant. How in the world could reproductive isolation and divergence possibly be prevented once you have admitted that random mutations occur and that natural selection acts. How could you possibly prevent new information from arising by this process? Why do you continue to spout complete nonsense that everyone knows is nonsense?

"ID does not deny evolution. It does not say there is an intelligent designer. ID merely says that something about nature, and natural evolution, seems to demonstrate some kind of intelligence and purpose."

I think most ID advocates would say that there was an intelligent designer. If you claim that the universe itself is intelligent, then God would not seem exist in any meaningful form. That would definately rub a lot of ID advocates the wrong way. It would also seem to go against every common notion of intelligence.

Nature doesn't seem to demonstrate some kind of intelligence and purpose from my viewpoint. If you think it does that's fine for you, but convincing others of a subjective feeling about something you want to believe is worthless. And even if I agreed that the universe seemed to be that way, the history of science has shown that things are not always the way they seem. That's why subjective judgements are considered worthless in science. Even if you were right, "it seems to me" is not a scientific argument nor evidence of anything and no reasonable person should be convinced by such an argument. If you disagree, then it seems to me that you are dead wrong.

"Actually, Dawkins said that even if the origin of life by random processes is highly unlikely, it’s still not a problem because it only happened once. He never actually concedes that the origin of life is highly unlikely. So you lied again."

Yes, if you redefine "lie" to mean disagreeing with you.

You are obviously not a Dawkins fan or you would have read his logical proof that God cannot exist. The argument starts with the premise that the accidental origin of life is utterly implausible.

there ya have it...

realpc is a richard dawkins fan.

we knew you'd come around!

seriously, I'm still laying odds that realpc is a puppet of one of the PT contributors, who's having a blast watching people respond to utter nonsense over and over again.

"But we have no evidence that RM + NS gives rise to new species, new information.” Of course we do. Ignoring that evidence is idiotic. Ignoring all of the other mechanisms can cause speciation is ignorant. How in the world could reproductive isolation and divergence possibly be prevented once you have admitted that random mutations occur and that natural selection acts. How could you possibly prevent new information from arising by this process?

I think most ID advocates would say that there was an intelligent designer. If you claim that the universe itself is intelligent, then God would not seem exist in any meaningful form.

That would definately rub a lot of ID advocates the wrong way. It would also seem to go against every common notion of intelligence.

the history of science has shown that things are not always the way they seem.

That’s why subjective judgements are considered worthless in science.

"That may be what you were taught"

But RealPC knows better!

He knows better than all those scientists working and producing thousands of so called "papers" which give "evidence" to "evolution", because he's far more capable than THEM.

My god, either you're monumentally stupid or more arrogant than Davescott, Joe G and Dr Dr Dumbass put together.

He knows better than all those scientists working and producing thousands of so called “papers” which give “evidence” to “evolution”,

'You never read what I wrote. I said there is plenty of evidence for evolution.'

But not to macro evolution, which as you have repeatedly been told, is just evolution.

There.

Is.

Evidence.

Say it with me.

I have said, over and over, that there is plenty of convincing evidence for evolution, including macro-evolution.

There is no doubt that evolution is a fact.

So what the hell was

“But we have no evidence that RM + NS gives rise to new species, new information.”

All about then?

I do hope at this point you guys are just playing along with his running in circles for fun?

It's getting hard to tell anymore who feels they're having fun with it, though.

If you think there is value in the endless repetition, I can't even imagine ANY lurkers that have bothered to follow his nonsense for this long (months and months now), and expect the pattern to change all of a sudden.

I still vote puppet.

I mean seriously, the cyclical redundancy? the quick shift when he's obvious pinned? Nobody could be that obtuse for this long intentionally.

I might even vote for a long lost personage... ghost of paley, being behind this particular puppet.

realPC wrote:

"Just knowing that evolution, RM and NS all occur says nothing about causal relationships. We can know several facts about a process, without concluding that some of these facts explain the process. There might be other facts we have not discovered, and the facts we already observed might turn out to not be important."

This does not even address any of the points I made and you know it. You didn't even try to answer any of my questions. I wonder why that is.

There are good theoretical reasons why we believe that speciation is fairly well understood. There are good mathematical models that give convincing results. There are good empirical studies that confirm the models. If you are not convinced, then perhaps you are not sufficiently aware of the evidence. In any event, it sure beats the intelligent universe hypothesis. Got any evidnce for that other than the "I don't want to believe that anyone understands evolution well enough to satisfy me" argument?

"There are good theoretical reasons why we believe that speciation is fairly well understood."

That is not true. It is not understood at all. It has not been observed, and there are no logical reasons to assume it happens the way you assume it does.

MET is based entirely on the assumption that evolution must be "natural," and "natural" is defined as unintelligent.

"How in the world could reproductive isolation and divergence possibly be prevented once you have admitted that random mutations occur and that natural selection acts. How could you possibly prevent new information from arising by this process?"

You have absolutely no basis for assuming new information would be created by this process. If a species of bacteria develops a new defense against an antibiotic, you cannot assume this new mechanism just happened by accident.

Natural selection is inevitable, but we know nothing about the general source of beneficial variations.

If it seems perfectly obvious to you that the source is always random, that is a purely philosophical preference.

realPC wrote:

"You have absolutely no basis for assuming new information would be created by this process. If a species of bacteria develops a new defense against an antibiotic, you cannot assume this new mechanism just happened by accident."

As I have explained to you before, there is empirical evidence for this. I have already provided you with references. You have failed to refute any of the scientific evidence. You have also failed to provide any evidence for your assertation that mutations are somehow directed. There is also empirical evidence that they are not. You have failed to refute this evidence as well. Claiming that others have no evidence when they in fact do is not a productive way to argue. Making assertations without evidence yourself is hypocritical.

'“There are good theoretical reasons why we believe that speciation is fairly well understood.”

That is not true. It is not understood at all. It has not been observed, and there are no logical reasons to assume it happens the way you assume it does.

MET is based entirely on the assumption that evolution must be “natural,” and “natural” is defined as unintelligent.'

I'm sorry, but how the hell do you know?

I don't know, nor do I claim to know, but I do know that lots of people on here are in exactly the position to know, so I trust them, they show me papers (which they have) and I'll be even more inclined to believe them. Ones personal incredulity means bollocks all, and when you try to state as fact something you could not possibly know, but those who could state is false, that's unbelievably arrogant, and breathtakingly moronic.

Read the web pages and the three papers before you issue judgment.

I am a staunch opponent of ID, and I cannot find ID at the site. And I first scrutinized it in June, prior to the controversy.

Evolutionary informatics is to intelligent design as chemistry is to alchemy.

OK, that's grandiose, but it conveys the right idea. Marks has defined a legitimate research area in which it is possible to conduct "dual use" research. That is, ID advocates may add their own interpretation to research results that wash in the mainstream.

The ad hominem arguments and guilt by association here are incredible.

Some very bright folks are dead wrong in deprecating papers they have not read, and perhaps do not have the math to understand. That a paper has Dembski's name on it does not mean that it's what you've seen in the past. It is not necessarily propaganda, and it is not necessarily ID. In fact, the papers by Marks and Dembski stand head and shoulders above anything Dembski did on his own. I believe they will pass review and appear in the mainstream literature.

Professor Marks has had an outstanding career.

This is not just from Baylor's perspective, but the world's. For instance, he was the president of the Neural Networks Council (the precursor of the Computational Intelligence Society) of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Everyone I know says fine things about him. I infer that he was interested in certain aspects of ID, and insisted on defining a legitimate research area in which to investigate them. I hate seeing him attacked for legitimizing the illegitimate.

No two ID proponents are exactly alike, just as no two neo-Darwinists are exactly alike.

— realpc

. . . ID says that RM + NS cannot account for the origin of new species.

RM + NS cannot add information or complexity.

ID does not deny evolution.

It does not say there is an intelligent designer.

ID merely says that something about nature, and natural evolution, seems to demonstrate some kind of intelligence and purpose.

. . . ID is concerned with the origin of new species. There is no evidence that a new species can originate by RM + NS.

All of the pro-MET evidence is for evolution, and for adaptation by RM + NS. None of the evidence shows that a new species can be created by RM + NS.

RM + NS is the basic mechanism of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism.

We know that RM occurs, and that NS occurs. But we have no evidence that RM + NS gives rise to new species, new information.

MET says that natural processes cannot be intelligent.

There is no basis for that claim. Evolution can be a natural process, and also an intelligent (non-random) process.

Another problem for MET is the origin of life.

There is no evidence that life can originate by random processes.

. . . ID can more easily explain the origin of life – if there is intelligence and purpose in nature, or some kind of drive toward increasing complexity, we would expect life to originate.

ID suggests that we re-think our assumptions about nature.

It does not in any way try to deny evolution or natural selection. It does not in any way claim that natural evolution cannot explain the origin of life or new species.

It merely says that life, and natural evolution, do not appear to be accidental.

MET is based entirely on the assumption that evolution must be “natural,” and “natural” is defined as unintelligent.

— realpc

and insisted on defining a legitimate research area in which to investigate them.

"If a species of bacteria develops a new defense against an antibiotic, you cannot assume this new mechanism just happened by accident.” As I have explained to you before, there is empirical evidence for this.

You have also failed to provide any evidence for your assertation that mutations are somehow directed. There is also empirical evidence that they are not.

I never asserted that mutations are directed.

LOL.

you've never asserted anything you didn't immediately backpedal on.

are you studying the best ways to move goalposts, or something?

oh, wait, you likely already have, and are just having fun watching people chase you around the field.

it doesn't bore you? of course if this is really a puppet of Ghost of Paley, who spent an entire year loki trolling ATBC, that question is moot.

realPC wrote:

"I have no idea what kind of evidence you imagine exists to show whether mutations are ALWAYS random or not. You’re just assuming and imagining." (CAPS added by me).

Keep changing those goal posts man.

I never claimed that there is evidence that mutations are ALWAYS random. That is entirely beside the point. What I claimed was that every time mutations have been studied they have been found to be due to natural causes that conform to the predictions of natural laws. As has been pointed out to you countless times, if you disagree the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise. You are the one who is assuming and imagining (and apparently projecting). You are the one without any evidence to support your claims.

Here is a test for you realPC, prove that every time cows are milked that the milk is completely natural and free of fairy dust. What, you say you can't do it. What, you say that it is impossible to be there to test the milk every time a cow is milked. OK then, I guess I would be justified in concluding that there is fairy dust in every drop of milk you don't test, right?

"There is no evidence for it. Why don’t you say something about what you think the evidence is?"

As I already stated, I provided you with the reference already. Here it is again for the hearing impaired:

Genetics 160:823-832 (2002)

This paper demonstrates specifically that the exact mutations responsible for the evolution of disease resistance in bacteria arise randomly. They have been studied in the lab and in nature. They conform to the expectations of a random model. They show no evidence of any planning, foresight or intelligence. They are completely representative of all of the other results in all of the other studies that have been performed. If you cannot refute the findings of this paper you cannot argue the point. Since you have ignored this evidence before, I assume you will ignore it once again. Do you really think that the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria has not been studied extensively? Do you really think that it is not well understood? Do you really think that the molecular mechanisms of mutations are not well studied and well understood? I weould advise you to increase your knowledge.

By the way, as others have also pointed out, you have ignored all my other questions. Why not try to answer them instead of changing the goal posts again? Just to recap: you claim to believe in microevolution, macroevolution, random mutations (at least sometimes) and natural selection. Why don't you make a claim of your own and back it up with some evidence? That way we won't have to guess what you are trying to argue about.

realPC wrote:

"I never asserted that mutations are directed. I said that is a possibility that should be investigated."

And as you have been told countless times, it has already been investigated extensively. I can provide you with references, but you just ignore them. You show no evidence of ever having read them let alone understood them. You are never able to refute their findings, but still you just kleep making the same baseless assertations time after time. As others have pointed out, it is completely worthless presenting you with evidence since it never seems to penetrate your mind. It certainly never seems to affect your so called arguments.

Why do you assume that scientists always take the easy answer without doing any work? Why do you always assume that we don't know what we are talking about? Why would any scientist do that? If we did, we would not have any work to do and we wouldn't have any jobs. Perhaps you are simply projecting your own deficiencies on others.

I never asserted that mutations are directed. I said that is a possibility that should be investigated. And there is no evidence showing mutations must be random.

unfortunately, he relied on his buddy Dembski to help him out in that endeavor, and rather than rigorously analyze Dembski’s take on what constitutes “legitimate research”, he took it on faith (pun intended) instead.

so you have a problem with denial.

Perhaps you have heard that there’s no such thing as bad publicity.

gee, never heard that one before, did you get that from the Disco Institute?

You and many other ID-phobes

LOL. methinks thou dost protest to much.

Your “argument” is that Dembski is bad, and anything, or anyone, associated with Dembski is bad.

actually, if you had ever bothered to actually read any of Dembski's work, and bothered to followup with the analysis of the bad math, assumptions, poor statistics, and misuse of the concept of probability, you would see that Dembski himself has made that argument better than anybody else.

aside from the fact that my argument was not that defacto association with Dembski is damning, but that Marks failed to take into account Dembski's flawed reasoning on the issue to begin with.

seriously, you are easier to see through than a pane of well cleaned glass.

I have a forthcoming peer-reviewed publication that bashes ID mercilessly

we can fairly ignore the rest of your advertisement for a non-existent field to focus on this, which would of course be far more interesting.

which journal will it be in, and do you have a pre-publication copy we could gander at?

. I challenge you to show me the ID content.

first, I challenge you to show me where "No Free Lunch" has nothing to do with Dembski misusing the concept of information in support of ID.

"As I already stated, I provided you with the reference already. Here it is again for the hearing impaired:

Genetics 160:823-832 (2002)"

You must have misunderstood that study. It showed that, although mutations were induced and selected from, antibiotic resistance did not evolve.

Do you not see what a radical departure this is from orthodox IDeology?

perhaps we should start over with a question for you:

how do YOU define what ID is, and what Dembski's take on it has been for the past 5 years or so?

what is "orthodox" IDeology, in your view?

who represents it?

Oh ok, before you go nuts, I read the wrong article. I just found it. Calm down and don't start calling me a moron before I get a chance to read it.

By the way, I think a wonderful response for the NCSE and other groups opposed to ID would be to reaffirm their opposition to ID, assert that evolutionary informatics is not ID, and call for Baylor University to grant academic freedom to Professor Marks. The reason I like it is, first, that it is genuinely fair and, second, that it will tend to calm the people who might be spurred to action.

They demonstrate also that intelligent agents sometimes think they’re speeding search when in fact they’re slowing it, relative to random search, with misinformation.

here's another question for you:

is guesswork about putative intelligent influence the basis for a working, testable hypothesis?

how would it compare, say to the analysis of intelligent influence in the study of archeology, for example?

maybe you might start realizing (or stop lying) that a hypothesis based on assumed action, with no basis in fact, isn't science, it's philosophy.

we can start wherever you like:

with your paper (I'd love to see it).

with any of the questions I posed to you.

with how dismantling the lack of science content this concept of evolutionary informatics (which isn't a lab, btw, but merely a website with unpublishable and untestable concepts) somehow "fuels" the furtherance of ID

lots to cover to expose you for being either a liar, or entirely mistaken in your take on how information science works, or how ID has been misusing it in an attempt to confuse people like yourself.

hell, it's not like this would even be a new discussion, as it's been covered several times before, and in much more detail than I ever would even bother to, so you'll see me likely referring to already well established rebuttals to the nonsense put forward by Dembski et. al. by people who have far more experience than i in information theory (heck, I'm just a behavioral biologist).

we'll have to continue dismantling your lies and misinformation tommorrow.

gotta go do something more interesting tonight.

realPC,

Take your time. There is plenty more where that came from. By the way, using the argument, "I am not convinced" won't work here. No one cares whether you are convinced or not. You claimed that the evidence did not exist. You claimed that the studies had not been done. You claimed that other people believed things based on preconceptions in the absence of evidence. With all due respect, you couldn't possibly know why anyone believes anything and you can know even less about what evidence they are familiar with. Would you testify under oath that there is no evidence regarding the evolution of the immune system?

The article definitively shows that antibiotic resistance has evolved and continues to evolve in exactly the way that one would predict given a model of random mutations. The laboratory studies were even used to predict what mutations would appear in nature and the predictions were confirmed by sequencing of isolates taken from nature. If you think that "I don't believe you" is a valid argument then I don't believe you!

Toejam, you strike me as an unembodied intelligence in a finch's suit. Your rhetorical style (ad hominems ad infinitum, responding to a question you can't answer with a "Gish gallop" of new questions, a personal attack against me in which you assert the opposite of what I've said about myself, trying to make my credibility hinge on the issue of whether I'll reveal my identity and web-publish material I have signed away copyrights to) are so typical of UD and ARN, and so untypical of PT. Your sarcasm brings Dave Scot Springer to mind. He has responded much as you have when I carried a discussion into a technical area he did not have the education to handle. It would be like him, to come here and throw a monkey wrench in the works.

Even if you are truly opposed to ID, your opposition is just as stupid as the typical support for ID. I am opposed to stupidity in all quarters.

I am hoping to get responses from people who have the technical acumen to assess the material at the lab's web site. RBH? PvM? Jeffrey Shallitt? Wes Elsberry? I am open to a reasonable argument that I'm missing something.

trying to make my credibility hinge on the issue of whether I’ll reveal my identity and web-publish material I have signed away copyrights to

— Evolutionary Informaticist

Marks is the world-class researcher,

the papers co-authored by the two are such a departure from Dembski’s previous work that the only reasonable conclusion is that Marks plays the role of the senior.

Marks and Dembski show that random search rapidly solves the problem addressed by ev.

The success of ev was not due to its evolutionary search procedure but to a fortunate matching between the search structure and the problem being solved.

Toejam, you strike me as an unembodied intelligence in a finch’s suit.

t would be like him, to come here and throw a monkey wrench in the works.

LOL.

yeah, you got me, I'm really Dave Scott Springerbot.

funniest thing I've heard all day.

now I'm wondering if this might even be Marks himself; it would explain why he has been letting all the lawyers do the talking for him of late.

Oleg,

I don't know how to answer your questions without telling too much about myself. My anonymity is due to my connection to Waco and / or Baylor and / or Professor Marks and / or opponents of intelligent design. Reread my posts. It should be obvious I know a thing or two.

I don’t know how to answer your questions without telling too much about myself. My anonymity is due to my connection to Waco and / or Baylor and / or Professor Marks and / or opponents of intelligent design. Reread my posts. It should be obvious I know a thing or two.

— Evolutionary Informaticist

"We know there has been evolution, mutations and selection. That does not allow us to assume evolution can be entirely explained by mutations and selection." "All of the pro-MET evidence is for evolution, and for adaptation by RM + NS. None of the evidence shows that a new species can be created by RM + NS."

"Nature doesn’t seem to demonstrate some kind of intelligence and purpose from my viewpoint." “it seems to me” is not a scientific argument nor evidence of anything and no reasonable person should be convinced by such an argument.

There's no point discussing this with realPC, because no matter what anyone does, he'll just keep saying "There's no evidence! There's no evidence!" in a predictable fashion.

realpc,

Thank you for taking the time to look at the reference I provided. You have proven me wrong on one point at least, you have proven that you are not completely recalcitrant to evidence.

I agree that we see things differently. I agree that you are entitled to your opinion. I hope that you can respect that my opinion is not based entirely on my own personal preferences. I hope that you can respect that I try to keep up with the literature and not simply make unfounded assumptions just for the sake of convenience. I hope that we can respectfully agree to disagree.

That having been said, I still claim that the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate any other mechanisms that you think might be operating. We have established that ordinary evolutionary mechanisms operate and that they can result in adaptations, novel phenotypes and an increase in information. No one claimed to have proven that they are the only processes operating. If you disagree that these processes are sufficient to account for the diversity of life we see on the planet you need to demonstrate that they are insufficient in some way. If you want to claim that there are other mechanisms operating, then you must provide the evidence to substantiate the claim. If you claim that intelligence and purpose are involved, you must prove it. I don't see that in the antibiotic resistance data and quite frankly I don't see it anywhere else either. You are of course free to disagree, but once again the burden of proof is on you.

By the way, the same argument holds for speciation as well. I could provide references for that or any other topic, but that doesn't seem to get us anywhere. Speaking of which, you still haven't answered my questions. You are of course free to ignore them, but in that case I see no point in further discussion.

By the way, when I cited the Genetics paper it was in response to this specific comment:

"You have absolutely no basis for assuming new information would be created by this process. If a species of bacteria develops a new defense against an antibiotic, you cannot assume this new mechanism just happened by accident."

This is in fact exactly what the paper demonstrates. If you move the goalposts too many times, you are in danger of forgetting where they were when the kick actually went through.

And just for the record, even if you completely disagree with the conclusions of the paper, the statement is still conclusively falsified.

David Stanton,

Yes, there is evidence for randomness in the learning processes of nature. Actually, trial and error is a part of all creativity, whether in a species or an individual.

When individuals (of any species) learn, however, the approach is never completely random. Since individuals have brains, you are willing to admit some kind of purpose and intelligence are involved.

The question is then: is the learning process of nature completely different from that of individuals? Does the fact that a species as a group has no physical brain mean that a species, unlike any individual member of that species, has nothing but trial and error to guide its learning?

Each member of a species has goals, purpose and some degree of intelligence. The species it belongs to, however, gropes its way randomly, totally in the dark. I think that summarizes MET.

To falsify MET we could try to find evidence of non-random learning at the species level. Has anyone looked? For example, when a species of bacteria is under stress, does it always produce the same kind and number of mutations, regardless of the type of stress?

Realpc wrote:

"To falsify MET we could try to find evidence of non-random learning at the species level. Has anyone looked? For example, when a species of bacteria is under stress, does it always produce the same kind and number of mutations, regardless of the type of stress?"

Yes, people have looked extensively and yes that is exactly what they found. That was the point I was trying to make about directed mutations. There is absolutely no evidence for them and no known mechanism by which they could be produced. Once again, I can provide references. But if the response will be that that doesn't prove that such a thing could not exist, I really don't see the point.

Perhaps you could save us a lot of time here by proposing a mechanism of directed mutations and providing the evidence for it. If not, you could at least get around to answering my questions. I have asked at least three times now. I will not ask again.

Tom English wrote: The obvious interpretation of “no free lunch” is that no optimizer is faster, in general, than any other. This misses some very important aspects of the result, however. One might conclude that all of the optimizers are slow, because none is faster than enumeration. And one might also conclude that the unavoidable slowness derives from the perverse difficulty of the uniform distribution of test functions. Both of these conclusions would be wrong. If the distribution of functions is uniform, the optimizer’s best-so-far value is the maximum of n realizations of a uniform random variable. The probability that all n values are in the lower q fraction of the codomain is p = qn. Exploring n = log2 p points makes the probability p that all values are in the lower q fraction. Table 1 shows n for several values of q and p. It is astonishing that in 99.99% of trials a value better than 99.999% of those in the codomain is obtained with fewer than one million evaluations. This is an average over all functions, of course. It bears mention that one of them has only the worst codomain value in its range, and another has only the best codomain value in its range.

Oops

this link

My anonymity is due to my connection to Waco and / or Baylor and / or Professor Marks and / or opponents of intelligent design.

Dick Fromage,

Post your real name, phone number, and land mail address. After verifying your identity by phone, I will send you hard copy of my work, complete with my name and contact information.

Please send me a copy as well.

Sincerely,
Jacques Miaf

Somebody move Dick Fromage and Jacques Miaf to the Bathroom Wall.

David Stanton,

I don't know which questions you mean. There have been lots of questions and arguments and it would be a full-time job to keep track of them. Since I already have a full-time job, I would need more informaiton than "my questions" to figure out what you mean.

realpc,

Sorry, I guess I should have repeated the questions. Here are my original questions:

“How in the world could reproductive isolation and divergence possibly be prevented once you have admitted that random mutations occur and that natural selection acts. How could you possibly prevent new information from arising by this process?”

Here is your response:

"You have absolutely no basis for assuming new information would be created by this process. If a species of bacteria develops a new defense against an antibiotic, you cannot assume this new mechanism just happened by accident.

Natural selection is inevitable, but we know nothing about the general source of beneficial variations.

If it seems perfectly obvious to you that the source is always random, that is a purely philosophical preference."

In my opinion the response does not address the questions. I guess I was asking for you to address the questions specifically. I guess I am asking wha=y you feel that there are such severe limitations on the evolutionary process. Saying that I assume that they are sufficient is not the same as saying why you think they are inadequate. Perhaps we have already come to an understandiing regarding the second question, but it seems to me that the issue of speciation has not been addressed. If you don't want to discuss it further that is OK, but I don't think you have ever answered the question.

By the way, we do indeed know a great deal about the general source of bneficial mutations, as I have already demonstrated.

I think I'm with realpc on this one, at least partially. There is absoltely no way to tell whether or not mutations are guided by the Great Spirit or other supernatural influences. We can only track down the source of mutations to some natural point, which is the scientific limit. In other words, we can SEE, directly, that some sequence was improperly copied. We might even be able to determine in detail the exact natural cause of the copying error. What we can NOT do is determine whether the proximate cause we identify has an even deeper supernatural cause, the Designer at work.

However, realpc is wrong if he's trying to say that mutation is not random with respect to selection. This is a mathematical determination and not at all difficult. At most, a Believer can assert that it is the Designer's intention to make mutation random with respect to selection.

And we can also say that, so long as the Designer prefers to work this way, reproductive isolation will lead to speciation, as two populations diverge due to different sets of copying errors and other mutation sources. At most, the Believer can claim that the Designer intends speciation when He introduces reproductive isolation.

It's my understanding that in some species, individuals under stress experience relaxed error-correcting regimes. This may imply that the Designer is changing the rules, and it may imply that this highly useful characteristic has been selected for.

So we're back in the casino, where the winners credit their gods for answering their prayers positively, and the losers credit their god for "answering" in such a way as to teach an important lesson. And the house knows that if their "take" varies by more than a couple of percent from the calculated odds, efforts to track down the cheating are always successful! The Designer is impressively consistent at following calculated odds every day.

Bottom line: EVEN IF it's the Designer, and not accident, providing raw material for selection, models presuming randomness work just fine. Whether randomness is natural or the result of invisible diddling is moot, as far as the model is concerned.

It’s my understanding that in some species, individuals under stress experience relaxed error-correcting regimes. This may imply that the Designer is changing the rules, and it may imply that this highly useful characteristic has been selected for.

Or it could mean that the stress causes less resources to be available for the error correction mechanisms, so they do a poorer job.

Re "How would you design this experiment?"

Being as I'm not a biologist, I can only guess. Maybe by fiddling with a gene that might be responsible for the effect, and seeing if breaking that gene changes the effect of stress on mutation rate. Would that work?

Henry

A couple of general points, here, since the discussion seems to be drifting this way:

(1) Assuming that we know nothing of how any specific mutation has arisen, we can rule out neither "directed" mutation, nor mutation caused by some stochastic process. However, the first requires, no it demands, that we postulate an explanation concerning the mechanism and the causation of the "direction" of the mutation. On the other hand, the second requires nothing more than an unpredictably* complex environment (such as the interior of a cell) in which known causesd of mutation exist.

* Here I use the term "unpredictably" to indicate that specific chemical reactions concerning individual nucleotide residues within a nulceic acid may be unpredictable; but the overall gross behaviour of the system is quite predictable.

Thus, undirected, and hence unpredictable, mutation is a better hypothesis:- it requires no additional speculation, and provides a more complete explanation.

(2) Some respondants have claimed that there is some kind of barrier to the ability of RM + NS (plus, I shall assume, the other mechanisms contained within MET) to generate sufficient novelty to create a new species.

However, this brings to light the difficulty of defining a species, and of how one should decide how to classify organisms with a universally consistent set of rules. This was a big problem in the middle of the nineteenth century, and it still poses a problem today (albeit one that is recognised as not being a fundamental problem owing to the inter-relatedness of all living things).

One of the points that Darwin raised in TOOS was the disagreement between different botanists and zoologists about the classification of certain organisms. Within a genus (about which there was usually a near consensus), there may be several species. These species tend to cluster into groups that are more and less closely related in terms of structure and behaviour (and, yes, genetics, too, but I'll stick to Darwin's data for the time being). Within each species there may be several sub-species and/or varieties. But there was rarely agreement about which particular organisms should constitute varieties, sub-species, and species.

This is because there was no sharp cut-off in the structure or behaviour of the individuals between one sub-species and the next, or between one variety and the next, or between varieties of one species and the next species. In fact, horticulturalists and agriculturalists had to work very hard to maintain the "purity" of a particular breed or variety. Variation would arise spontaneously, often after a single cross between two breeds or varieties.

Even with modern genetic and molecular biological techniques, identifying an individual as belonging to a particular sub-species or species is problematic; it is simply acknowledged that the problem is not an important one. This is because the entire concept of a species is a human construct. There is nothing within nature that leads directly to the conclusion that members of different, but closely-allied, species are fundamentally different from one another.

Instead, there is a continuum: within a variety or breed, there is variation, with extreme individuals resembling the extreme individuals of the next breed or variety. Similarly, within species there is variation, frequently with the extreme individuals of one species resembling the extreme individuals of a closely-related species (closely-related in terms of structure and behaviour, not necessarily genetics, although this often is the case).

We know that our domestic dogs are all related, and are all members of the same species. Yet, what zoologist, if confronted with a Bulldog and a Greyhound, in the absence of background knowledge about the breeds, would not classify them as distinct species?

Thus, not only is the concept of a species hard to define rigorously, but the concept of a barrier to speciation is actually ludicrous. The concept of a speciation-barrier is even more ludicrous when the proponents of such a barrier cannot even tentatively propose a mechanism by which it might operate. Such a concept simply does not survive comparison with reality.

This thread has me stoked for Dembski's presentation tonight at OU. I will be taking my son as I want him to develop a strong, as Carl Sagan puts it, baloney detection kit. I'm glad he's going as he is reluctant to go to the movies with me. He says I embarrass him because at some preposterous moment in the movie I often would convulsively choke out "bull shit". I could see it coming and I'd try to resist, but there it was. I will try not to embarrass him this evening. David

Flint wrote:

"It’s my understanding that in some species, individuals under stress experience relaxed error-correcting regimes. This may imply that the Designer is changing the rules, and it may imply that this highly useful characteristic has been selected for."

Nice post, very well said.

It is also my understanding that under some circumstances error correction may be reduced and mechanisms for generating variation may be induced. This could indeed be an adaptive strategy that has evolved over time. This might be one aspect of the evolution of evolvability.

As to how to test this hypothesis, I think that would be very difficult. A direct approach might involve many generations of very large populations of bacteria under varying stress regimes in chemostats. I think some work has been done in this area, but it would have to be a very long-term experiment to study evolvability. Some indirect approached might involve testing certain prediction of the model for organisms known to have been under different selection regimes for long period of time. The genetic manipulation approach suggested by Henry might be useful. At least that would allow for a detailed description of the adaptations invoilved. In any event, the "God did it" hypothesis is not likely to be productive and, as you point out, it might be nearly impossible to distinguish experimentally between a God who chooses to act through natural means and strictly natural means alone. Either way, the random models would yield accurate predictions.

“How in the world could reproductive isolation and divergence possibly be prevented once you have admitted that random mutations occur and that natural selection acts. How could you possibly prevent new information from arising by this process?”

It depends on what you mean by "new information." If you count any kind of difference as newness, then random shuffling could be said to produce new information.

But that is not what we normally mean by new information. The evolution of life does not look like a mere shuffling. Life seems, obviously, to have organized itself, to have built increasingly complex structures from existing components. The process looks similar to the process of developing increasingly complex software.

Compare one-celled to multi-celled organisms, to vertebrates with central nervous systems. It doesn't seem necessary to argue that a human being is more complex than an amoeba -- there is information in the human being that is not present in the amoeba. Of course, humans and amoebas do have information in common. But you can see the difference, I am sure.

Systems theory studies how complex natural systems tend to organize themselves. For example, they are usually composed of modular sub-systems which are arranged hierarchically in levels (not unlike software). A more complex system is likely to have more levels than a simpler system.

An amoeba has no organization level for determining relationships between cells, of course, since it has only one cell. In humans, cells are inter-related within organs, and organs are inter-related.

An organism with more and higher levels of organization can be considered to be more complex than an organism with fewer levels.

So one obvious way in which evolution has led to an increase in information is in numbers of organizational levels.

One-celled animals may related to one another in colonies, and may communicate with each other. This is an example of another kind of higher-order organization (although simpler than the organization of cells within a unified organism).

Well maybe you get the idea. There are many ways of describing how evolution has led to new information and greater complexity. Simpler components are combined into more complex higher-order structures.

Nigel wrote:

"Thus, not only is the concept of a species hard to define rigorously, but the concept of a barrier to speciation is actually ludicrous. The concept of a speciation-barrier is even more ludicrous when the proponents of such a barrier cannot even tentatively propose a mechanism by which it might operate. Such a concept simply does not survive comparison with reality."

I agree completely. In fact, that is exactly what I was trying to get realpc to admit. What could possibly prevent sexually reproducing organisms from at least sometimes undergoing reproductive isolation and divergence? The evidence indicates that divergence occurs all the time and isolation can occur by any number of mechanisms, up to and including simple geographic isolation. Once you have conceded random mutation and natural selection, which any sane and informed person must, speciation becomes inevitable and macroevolution becomes merely another emergent property of the evolutionary process. This is in fact why the species concept is so problematic, because as you pointed out, so many levels of isolation and divergence are observed.

The idea of fixed and perfect species died with Linnaeus. Trying to bring it back in any form is contrary to the genetic evidence. That would be as ridiculous as trying to say that Lamarck was right.

realpc wrote:

"It depends on what you mean by “new information.” If you count any kind of difference as newness, then random shuffling could be said to produce new information."

Several points need to be made here.

First you have steadfastly refuse to even attempt to define the term information, so I obviously have no idea what you mean by that term.

Second, we have already established that, according to the genetics paper which you did not have any problem with, that new information had indeed been created by random mutations. New mechanisms of antibiotic resistance and new alleles have evolved and survived under selection. That is information by any reeasonable definition of the term. For example, the researchers used the information to predict what mutations would most likely arise and be successful under different selection regimes in nature. They could also use the information to design new antibiotics, etc.

Third, no new information is required in order for speciation to occur. Reproductive isolation does not require new information. Many different isolating mechanisms can and do occur, including geographic isolation, which do not require any change in the organisms at all. Divergence can be caused by so called random shuffling as well. So even if you don't count that as new information, divergence has still occurred. For example, humans and chimp karyotypes differ by only one chromosomal fusion. This alone most likely would render interspecific hybrids infertile. Even if you don't count this as new information, speciation and divergence has still occurred.

Fourth, divergence by random mutations will be inevitable once reproductive isolation is operating. There is no possibility that this process will not create new information by any reasonable definition. We know that divergence will increase over time. We know that the differences that will occur and the differences that survive will have information in them. We know that it will be new information because it did not exist before. Even random shuffling will contribute to this process, but point muatations, gene duplications and regulatory mutations will also occur.

Fifth, I suspect that your aragument will now be that this could not result in an increase in complexity. Notice that that was not your initial claim and that was not my question. You are free to argue that point all you want, (some evidence would still be nice), but that was not, is not and will not be the issue hers. You might want to check out the more recent thread on new information however.

David Stanton said: First you [Realpc] have steadfastly refuse to even attempt to define the term information, so I obviously have no idea what you mean by that term.

“How in the world could reproductive isolation and divergence possibly be prevented once you have admitted that random mutations occur and that natural selection acts. How could you possibly prevent new information from arising by this process?” It depends on what you mean by “new information.” If you count any kind of difference as newness, then random shuffling could be said to produce new information.

— realpc

But that is not what we normally mean by new information.

The evolution of life does not look like a mere shuffling.

Life seems, obviously, to have organized itself,

to have built increasingly complex structures from existing components.

The process looks similar to the process of developing increasingly complex software.

Compare one-celled to multi-celled organisms, to vertebrates with central nervous systems.

It doesn’t seem necessary to argue that a human being is more complex than an amoeba – there is information in the human being that is not present in the amoeba. Of course, humans and amoebas do have information in common. But you can see the difference, I am sure.

Systems theory studies how complex natural systems tend to organize themselves. For example, they are usually composed of modular sub-systems which are arranged hierarchically in levels (not unlike software). A more complex system is likely to have more levels than a simpler system.

An amoeba has no organization level for determining relationships between cells, of course, since it has only one cell. In humans, cells are inter-related within organs, and organs are inter-related.

An organism with more and higher levels of organization can be considered to be more complex than an organism with fewer levels. So one obvious way in which evolution has led to an increase in information is in numbers of organizational levels. One-celled animals may related to one another in colonies, and may communicate with each other. This is an example of another kind of higher-order organization (although simpler than the organization of cells within a unified organism).

Well maybe you get the idea. There are many ways of describing how evolution has led to new information and greater complexity. Simpler components are combined into more complex higher-order structures.

Nigel,

Thanks for the help. I appreciate it. However, be warned that the goalposts are moving so fast here that it will be hard for anyone to keep up. You should kick about fifty yards to the right of the current position in order to have a reasonable chance of scoring any points.

First realpc claimed that antibiotic resistance could not evolve by RM/NS, wrong. Then he claimed that new information could not be produced by RM/NS (without defining information), wrong. Then he claimed that speciation could not occur by RM/NS (without defining species), wrong. Now he claims that complexity cannot increase by RM/NS (without defining complexity), wrong again.

I think this last one is what he is really hung up on. I think this last one is the one he really cares about. He will steer any conversation in this direction. Of course we have had this discussion many times before. He never has any evidence to support his position. In fact, you are never quite sure what his position is exactly. He just claims over and over that some things will complexify in some way for some reason at some times. The issue here is that he has provided no reason whatsoever for the assumption that RM/NS cannot increase complexity. He claims that something else is needed, just as he claimed for all the other processes that he has been shown to be worng about.

Re "Software tends to bloat because the designers add in features that very few users expect to need."

And don't clean out old ones that aren't needed anymore. (Are you listening, Mr. Gates? ;) )

Henry

Re "But amoebae may communicate with one another chemically, so how exactly is this different?"

Also amoebae may likely need more chemical mechanisms in the one cell than any one cell of a vertebrate would need, since that one cell has to do more things than a specialized vertebrate cell would have to do for itself.

That leaves me wondering if it's safe to assume that amoebae are less complicated than vertebrates. If the stuff inside a cell is more complicated than the arrangement of cells in a vertebrate (which does appear to be the case), then is the vertebrate necessarily more complex than the single cell that has all it needs to fend for itself?

Henry

Henry,

Without a good definition of complexity and a way to measure it, it may not be possible to answer this question definitively. Either way, explaining the origin of complexity is really not a problem for modern evolutionary theory.

David, You're welcome.

I have more or less given up any expectation that realpc will change his/her views based on rational argument from the evidence. However, I am sure there are some visitors to the site who lack the background knowledge to assess realpc's claims for themselves. Thus, I hope to point out, for the benefit of these innocent bystanders, how flawed are the arguments that realpc, and others, propose.

"explaining the origin of complexity is really not a problem for modern evolutionary theory."

Attempting to explain the origin of complexity IS modern evolutionary theory. Or should be.

Funny, I thought the purpose of evolution theory was to explain the relationships among species.

The purpose of evolution theory is, or should be, to explain how life, as a whole, evolved in the direction of greater complexity.

Evolution theory should also be troubled by how life originated, instead of sweeping that under the rug for someone else to worry about.

The purpose of evolution theory is, or should be, to explain how life, as a whole, evolved in the direction of greater complexity.

Evolution theory should also be troubled by how life originated, instead of sweeping that under the rug for someone else to worry about.

The purpose of evolution theory is, or should be, to explain how life, as a whole, evolved in the direction of greater complexity.

Evolution theory should also be troubled by how life originated, instead of sweeping that under the rug for someone else to worry about.

The purpose of evolution theory is, or should be, to explain how life, as a whole, evolved in the direction of greater complexity.

— realpc

Evolution theory should also be troubled by how life originated, instead of sweeping that under the rug for someone else to worry about.