Casey Luskin on the Origin of Genetic Information?

As expected, O'Leary has 'reported' on the issue. So much for common journalistic inquiry and accuracy in reporting. What a sham.

Well, why not also link to this?

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2004/02/the_richard_dawkins_incident_1.php

The simple fact is this...Dawkins got flustered because he realized they were creationists. He let it upset him, but he consented to go on with the interview, and they used the horrible answer that he gave. Yes, it makes him look bad, but that's his fault, not theirs. There is nothing dishonest about it other than the way he handled it. Rather than just admitting that he had a bad day and blew the answer, he protected his ego at the expense of his integrity. It should also be noted that he has since answered the question, and I think answered it quite well. I regard the question as an absurd one. But he should have pointed that out, and why, at the time and all of this could have been avoided. So that's it, the infamous Dawkins Incident. There is no truth to the rumor that the unedited video footage shows Stephen Jay Gould on the grassy knoll.

[Update Monday, September 17, 2007: I just learned that Dawkins himself posted a response to this video where he tried to answer "The Information Challenge." Read Dawkins' response at http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm and see if he still has yet to satisfactorily answer the question!]

— Luskin

"But the issue is the following"

Absolutely.

But Dawkins' lies should not be overlooked too.

After all, whose intellectual credibility matters more - Luskin's or Dawkins'?

Also, Luskin was blamed in your posting because he "failed to mention that Dawkins rebutted the video". But what about mentioning the rebuttal to the rebuttal of the video?

Minor offtopic quibble about the new format:

You need a better way to clarify where one comment begins and the next begins. Alternate-shading, as in scienceblogs, is a good idea.

After all, whose intellectual credibility matters more - Luskin’s or Dawkins’?

obviously, Luskin thinks his credibility matters not one whit as far as his target audience goes.

considering the man lies and obfuscates at every opportunity.

It's hard to even recall a single public comment he has made where there are no omissions of fact, egregious intentional errors, quotemines, or just flat out lies.

even being a lawyer doesn't excuse him from all that.

he has no intellectual credibility to trade on, whatsoever.

Dawkins, OTOH, has decades of cred to trade on, and if he made a mistake (which is ridiculously overblown by the likes of Lyin' Luskin and the Disco institute), anybody who has ever followed the real issues at all will most likely let it slide, since it bears not at all on the substance of the issues at hand.

which, in the end, is pretty much what Pim was trying to point out.

so stop with the stupid shit about who was mistaken about which vid clip, and focus on the issues that were actually addressed.

this whole thing about trying to equate Luskin and Dawkins credibility is deflectionary nonsense.

I note with some satisfaction that Dawkins in the last part of his answer describes very much the same conclusion that I have fumbled towards on other threads here, that of the whole gene pool as learning about the environment (and forgetting about old environments).

But I must admit I hadn't gotten around to sharpen the description to learning of how to survive and reproduce, nor thought of certain structures as remnants of ancestral environments. All of which Dawkins presents in his usual engaging way.

But Dawkins’ lies should not be overlooked too.

I don't really see why this is an issue anyway. As far as I am concerned, Dawkins could have answered the question by putting on a ballerina outfit and reciting the first two chapters of Genesis while standing on his head. What matters is the merit (or lack thereof) of the arguments -- not how good some scientist looked when asked a question.

The fact is that ID creationists regularly try to attack evolution by seeking out gaps in our scientific knowledge and insisting that God...err..I mean the Designer ....must have done it. A God-of-the-gaps argument doesn't gain credibility through repetition. The fact that we don't currently have a 100% complete account of molecular evolutionary events that happened hundreds of millions (or billions) of years ago is not a reason to jump to the conclusion that it was a supernatural miracle or that DNA is the result of intentional, intelligent design.

Apparently Evolution News & Views fancies itself as the Fox News of evolution.

Note that Fox on evolution isn't all that bad.

Cool desing, Darwinsts. I like the pictures on the left side (showing the beauty and the diversity of nature), with the exception of those skulls. Is the Piltdown skull any of those? ;o)

Off-topic, rather, but I am no biologist and just now quite interested in knowing about micro-organisms which are particularly good at oxidizing methane into methanol. I suspect that regulars here are likely to know of some.

Apologies for the multiple posts! (I'd delete the duplicates if I could.)

The problem was some form of link error and so I thought the post had not gone through. The message was something about too many connections for non-superusers...

After all, whose intellectual credibility matters more - Luskin’s or Dawkins’?

Neither; what matters is the credibility of the claims for and against the ToE. The claim against is that it can’t explain “increase of information” – and that claim has been thoroughly discredited.

All my comments on this were lost. I'm sure you will be relieved that I more or less remember what I wrote.

I wrote two long comments about how Dawkins, in that essay, says that he tends to believe evolution is progressive:

"there has been a broad overall trend towards increased information content during the course of human evolution from our remote bacterial ancestors."

"We have an intuitive sense that a lobster, say, is more complex (more "advanced", some might even say more "highly evolved") than another animal, perhaps a millipede."

He also provides a heuristic for measuring the quantity of information, or degree of complexity (and he seems to consider them equivalent concepts). He says we can estimate information content of a species as the number of words needed to describe a member of that species in detail. By that measure, a lobster is more complex than a millipede.

I agree with Dawkins that evolution has been progressive (many here have disagreed with me on that, which puts you in disagreement with one of your heroes!)

And I think Dawkins' definition of complexity, or information content, is reasonable. Many of you have challenged me to define what I mean by complexity. Well, now you have it.

Dawkins, in this essay, does not provide any convincing argument for how RM + NS (ah yes, don't forget sexual recombination and migratory mixing, because MET is "much more" than just RM + NS!) can lead to progressive evolution.

That's a short version of my lost comments.

I agree with Dawkins that evolution has been progressive (many here have disagreed with me on that, which puts you in disagreement with one of your heroes!)

"bacteria are still the most successful species"

Yes, and that should convince you that progressive evolution does NOT result from the struggle for survival.

If evolution were all about learning better ways to survive and reproduce (as Dawkins, and Darwinists in general, believe), then it would not have progressed beyond bacteria.

As I always say, life seems to have a drive towards increasing complexity. This drive can explain why evolution is progressive (not for individual species, but for the overall system).

Without a drive toward increasing complexity, evolution theorists cannot explain why evolution didn't quit after producing the most excellent forms of life, when it comes to survival.

Evolution has NOT resulted in species with ever-increasing survival skills. You could make a case that humans are the best survivors, since we are so good at annihilating other species with our technology (and this has been the case since we learned to throw spears).

But other highly complex mammals do not seem to have any great advantages when it comes to survival. How is a dolphin better at surviving than a shark, for example? How is a sparrow better at surviving than a cockroach?

Being an excellent survivor does not seem to correlate with level of complexity. Therefore, the whole idea that natural selection is the driving force of evolution must be questioned.

Dawkins says that natural selection adds information, but it doesn't. It just weeds out bad information. Bad survivors die sooner and reproduce less. There is nothing in natural selection that promotes complexity -- since, as I have explained, greater complexity does not correlate with excellence in survival skills.

Being an excellent survivor does not seem to correlate with level of complexity. Therefore, the whole idea that natural selection is the driving force of evolution must be questioned.

If evolution were all about learning better ways to survive and reproduce (as Dawkins, and Darwinists in general, believe), then it would not have progressed beyond bacteria.

As I always say, life seems to have a drive towards increasing complexity. This drive can explain why evolution is progressive (not for individual species, but for the overall system).

Laser,

You can have and express the opinion that RM + NS (+ sexual selection, etc., etc.) can adequately explain evolution, without having to perform experiments and publish results. It's difficult or impossible to prove MET experimentally, but that never stops Dawkins and others from proclaiming it proven.

Yet you don't think I should have or express my opinion that MET does NOT explain progressive evolution, until I have proven it experimentally.

I am not a biologist, for one thing, so I would have to change careers first. And then I would have to accomplish something no evolutionary biologist has accomplished -- support an evolution hypothesis experimentally.

Is that fair? Not exactly.

Furthermore, arguments come before experiments. No one can do a worthwhile experiment, on any question, without a clear and logical, detailed, hypothesis.

I am trying to express my arguments against some of the assumptions of MET. If you see logical errors in my arguments, let me know. But don't demand experimental evidence before allowing suggestions and arguments!

Both "progressed" and "beyond" are subjective judgments.

My understanding of current theory: Mutations cause variation within a species. Sometimes some of the varieties are more complex (using whatever reasonable definition one wants for that). Sometimes the more complex varieties are more prolific than their relatives. Sometimes this happens in the most complex of species, in which case the upper bound on complexity goes up. (But the still living less complex varieties aren't necessarily harmed by that, unless something eats them.)

I suspect that at some point there'd be diminishing returns on furthur increases in complexity, due to using more resources or being more fragile, or other such problems.

Henry

"greater complexity does not correlate with excellence in survival skills." -- realpc

Actually, this is not completely true. Increased complexity often does correlate with an absolute improvement in survival skills (or abilities) -- take for instance the natural antifreeze in Antarctic fish.

Additionally, the increased survival value of the added complexity is often masked by the concomitant counter-evolution of predator and/or prey species. This doesn't mean that the complexity is useless; it merely means that the Red Queen effect is in play.

RealPC-

I think you may be confusing some terms

progressive evolution:
implies evolution towards a goal. i.e. the old "ladder of life" analogy - as if organisms "want" to become "more advanced" or "less primative" - this is a concept not generally accepted in modern evolutionary theory because no one has described (or shown to exist) any mechanism for this drive. The appearance of this progression is a result of stepwise adaptations in evolutionary history.

Survive "better" or "excellence in survival skills":
I think what you are talking about is adaptation to a niche - why are there any organisms "above" bacteria? there are ecological niches that exist that other organisms were able to fill better/adapt to vs. the bacteria that previously occupied or that previously did not exist.

you are falling into a logical fallacy/trap - "if I evolved from "x", and I am "better" than "x" why is there still "x" around?

In general, we can see that increased complexity does not result in increased survival skills. So there is no practical reason for evolution to have gone in the direction of increased complexity.

Dawkins agrees that our intuitive sense that complexity has increased is probably in accordance with scientific reality. We cannot explain increasing complexity as a response to environmental pressures, since simple organisms still exist (and vastly outnumber more complex organisms) and are still doing a fine job of surviving.

If greater complexity gave species great survival advantages, they would have destroyed the simpler species (and therefore life on earth would have been destroyed). The only complex species that is destroying simpler species is our own, but we are an exception. And we are not destroying the simplest species, only those that are relatively complex. In fact, some of the most complex and intelligent species -- gorillas, chimpanzees, whales, for example -- are in the greatest danger from our technology.

Cockroaches seem to be doing just fine. And bacteria are doing an ingenius job of defending themselves against us.

Complexity does not seem to add basic survival value. It would be hard to make a good case that complexity is generally a result of environmental pressure and competition.

As an example -- we would expect a species of deer to improve its running ability in response to being chased by faster predators. This results directly from natural selectiion, and the fact that some deer are naturally a little faster than others, because of random genetic variations. This is a clear example of Darwinian evolution. It is NOT, however, an example of increasing complexity.

All MET examples are of that kind -- supporting Darwinian evolution, without showing any noticeable increase in complexity, according to Dawkins' definition. It takes the same number of words to describe a faster deer as it takes to describe a slower deer.

realpc wrote:

"Dawkins says that natural selection adds information, but it doesn’t. It just weeds out bad information. Bad survivors die sooner and reproduce less. There is nothing in natural selection that promotes complexity – since, as I have explained, greater complexity does not correlate with excellence in survival skills."

And after natural selection acts there is information in the genotypes that survive and the genotypes that didn't. We can use that information to calculate selection coefficients and predict what will happen in the future under similar conditions.

And no, there is nothing in natural selection that promotes anything but survival under certain conditions. If an increase in complexity happens to increase survival then it will not be selected against. If it does not increase survival it will might be selected against since it might have some costs associated with it. Natural selection has no goals or plans. Natural selection is just what happens.

PvM said it best. The argument is not whether an increase in complexity has occurred or not, it is whether it had to occur. Random processes will sometimes result in complexity. There is no reason why they have to, it is just one possible outcome of randomness. Sometimes this will be adaptive, sometimes not. That is why not all lineages have increased in complexity. Since increased complexity does not always result in increased survival, there is absolutely no reason why things need to get more complex or even want to get more complex. Complexity is not a goal in and of itself, it may not even be desirable in and of itself. Indeed many very complex lineages have gone completely extinct. A general trend to increasing complexity simply does not correspond to a requirement for progressive evolution. As Gould pointed out, things could have worked out different, they just didn't.

David said it better than I could

David said it better than I could

So there is no practical reason for evolution to have gone in the direction of increased complexity.

Complexity does not seem to add basic survival value.

Yep, generally speaking, increased complexity may not confer increased survivability/reproduction. And, guess what, generally speaking, "complex" organisms (actually got a metric for that? --didn't think so) do not dominate the biosphere. Bacteria, viruses, and unicellular organisms do.

The multicellular fungi, plants, and animals make up the thinnest possible "crown" on an incredibly wide base of less "complex" unicellular and noncellular organisms.

Only in rare circumstances has selection favored more complex forms.

So, even if you're right, you've got no point.

But then, I expect you've long realized that.

realpc wrote:

"All MET examples are of that kind – supporting Darwinian evolution, without showing any noticeable increase in complexity, according to Dawkins’ definition. It takes the same number of words to describe a faster deer as it takes to describe a slower deer."

This is simply not true, since there is ample evidence for macroevolution as well as microevolution.

For example, check out the thread a few down from this one on hox genes. PZ reviews the data on the hox gene complexs and compares the hox genes in vertebrates with those in invertebrates such as arthropods. Two gene duplication events that occurred in the vertebrate lineage lead to diversification of the vertebrate developmental system. This is an increase in complexity by any meaningful definition. It occurred by well known mechanisms of gene duplication and subsequent diversification. We know the lineages in which the duplications occurred and the timing of the duplication events. We are beginning to discover some of the mutations in these genes that have lead to diversification of the arthropod and vertebrate lineages. This is new information, this is an increase in complexity. Note that most invertebrate lineages did not undergo this change, even though there is no reason why they could not have.

Thanks to Jason for the kind words.

"One kind of needs a specific defintion for “complexity” to know what that means."

I'm so glad Dawkins has come to the rescue on this. We never have to get bogged down by it again.

realpc said:

""bacteria are still the most successful species"

Yes, and that should convince you that progressive evolution does NOT result from the struggle for survival."

I think we make the mistake of proclaiming that any one species is "the most successful". Successful is a very relative term. Any organism that currently fills a niche on this planet is successful. Therefore, we should not be convinced RM+NS would not generate increased complexity. Also, while it is true that bacteria are very successful, one should keep in mind that many that inhabit us cannot live in any other environment. In addition, had it not been for a distant ancestor of the Rickettsia, we would not be here. This brings me to my next point...

realpc goes on to say:
"Dawkins says that natural selection adds information, but it doesn’t. It just weeds out bad information. Bad survivors die sooner and reproduce less. There is nothing in natural selection that promotes complexity – since, as I have explained, greater complexity does not correlate with excellence in survival skills.”

So selection favoring endosymbiotic relationships doesn't add information? Let me check my math, 1 genome + 1 genome = 2 genomes. This stuff doesn't occur overnight, and selection acts on these relationships through many generations. Endosymbiosis, which gave rise to our mitochondria and plant chloroplasts is occuring today in nature between single-celled organisms such as protists engulf algae as secondary symbionts. One could argue that this most extreme case of LGT adds quite alot of info.

P.S. Ever heard of pathogenicity islands, gene duplication? This is information added (for gene duplication, after new function arrises) that selection seems to favor in many cases.

It Trolled thusly: All my comments on this were lost. I’m sure you will be relieved that I more or less remember what I wrote.

It Trolled thusly: Without a drive toward increasing complexity, evolution theorists cannot explain why evolution didn’t quit after producing the most excellent forms of life, when it comes to survival.

Once again, PC trolls thusly... You ... express the opinion that RM + NS (+ sexual selection, etc., etc.) can adequately explain evolution, without having to perform experiments and publish results.

Yet you don't think I should have or express my opinion that MET does NOT explain progressive evolution, until I have proven it experimentally.

We cannot explain increasing complexity as a response to environmental pressures, since simple organisms still exist (and vastly outnumber more complex organisms) and are still doing a fine job of surviving.

If greater complexity gave species great survival advantages, they would have destroyed the simpler species

realpc wrote:

"As I always say, life seems to have a drive towards increasing complexity. This drive can explain why evolution is progressive (not for individual species, but for the overall system).
Without a drive toward increasing complexity, evolution theorists cannot explain why evolution didn’t quit after producing the most excellent forms of life, when it comes to survival."

Sure they can. Evolution never "quits" as long as random mutations occur and selection acts. You are the one who cannot explain why evolution "quit" if there is indeed a drive toward increasing complexity. Has this drive now fulfilled it's goal and produced the "most excellent forms of life" already? Were humans the ultimate goal all along? Should all change cease because we are now here and are the best life form that could ever possibly exist? How can there possibly be a "most excellent form" when it comes to survival if the environment is constantly changing? That is in fact why evolution will never "quit", but a plan that reaches it's ultimate goal will.

This seems to me to be the crux of all creationists arguments. It goes something like this: I am special. God created the unverse especially for me. It was preordained that I should arise in my present and most perfect form from the beginning of the universe. Contrast this with the evolutionary perspective: I am one possible outcome of random processes operating over billions of years. I am not perfect, since my form is constrained by chance and historical contingency, but my speicies is still evolving. There is no need for me to exist in my present form, it is just what happened. It didn't have to happen this way and indeed it might not have, it just did. Now, which scenario makes you feel more priviledged and special? Do you think that how you feel affects reality in any way?

Were RealPC a football coach, once he had the best quarterback, he'd see no need for linebackers.

In general, we can see that increased complexity does not result in increased survival skills. So there is no practical reason for evolution to have gone in the direction of increased complexity.

"You are the one who cannot explain why evolution “quit” if there is indeed a drive toward increasing complexity."

Ridiculous. Who ever said evolution stopped? Where did you get that idea and how could you ever prove it?

You are trying to pretend I'm a Christian creationist who thinks humans were put here by God to rule the world. Well that's a pile of nonsense and you know it. Trying to equate scientific people, including computer scientists, who see a drive towards complexity in nature with Christian creationists is a pathetic strategy.

Without a drive toward increasing complexity, evolution theorists cannot explain why evolution didn’t quit after producing the most excellent forms of life, when it comes to survival.

— Realpc

stevaroni,

Ok, if there are simple experiments that demonstrate progressive evolution, tell us about one of them.

They don't exist. We all know you can create variations of a species with artificial selection -- it's been done for thousands of years. But you can't create a new species by selection, and certainly not a species more advanced than the one you start with. (And don't tell me "advanced" is a subjective judgment -- use Dawkins' definition.)

Artificial creation of a new species has not been done, no more than artificial creation of life has been done.

So where is your experimental proof of MET? It does not exist.

MET is a hypothesis, the only evolution hypothesis consistent with scientific materialism. That is the ONLY reason it has been accepted as the standard theory. Because people like Dawkins prefer not to believe we are part of an intelligent universe.

Ok, if there are simple experiments that demonstrate progressive evolution, tell us about one of them.

You are trying to pretend I’m a Christian creationist who thinks humans were put here by God to rule the world. Well that’s a pile of nonsense and you know it. Trying to equate scientific people, including computer scientists, who see a drive towards complexity in nature with Christian creationists is a pathetic strategy.

realpc wrote:

"Without a drive toward increasing complexity, evolution theorists cannot explain why evolution didn’t quit after producing the most excellent forms of life, when it comes to survival."

You are the one who claimed that the "most excellent forms of life" had already been produced. If that is not your claim then evolution theorists have nothing at all to explain. You are the one who is claiming that this is the ultimate goal of the master plan that necessitates increased complexity. This specifically implies that evolution should "quit" after the "most excellent forms of life" are produced.

So which is it? Should evolution now be stopped according to your hypothesis or not? If so, you have already admitted that it has not and I have already explained why it should not be expected to according to the modern theory of evolution. If not, then you have already admitted that you are dead wrong and the evidence falsifies your hypothesis according to your own argument. Either way the argument you make is indefensible. You need to make some testable predictions that differ from those that are predicted by the modern theory of evolution and test them with real evidence. Of course that could be hard to do if you don't know what the predictions of MET would be.

If you don't want to be clumped with creationists, don't make the same kinds of ignorant claims that they make in defense of the same types of ignorant ideas.

"Why not start by defining the concept of complexity"

Are you kidding me? Why not count the number of times I defined it in my comments on this post. Are you reading anything, or just responding randomly?

David Stanton,

You seem to have misunderstood what I said. By "the most excellent forms of life, when it comes to survival" I meant bacteria.

Riiiiight, and by "bendejo" I meant my very good friend.

You get more pathetic by the moment Troll boy.

“Why not start by defining the concept of complexity” Are you kidding me? Why not count the number of times I defined it in my comments on this post. Are you reading anything, or just responding randomly?

realpc,

You are indeed correct, I did misunderstand you. I wonder why?

So, if I now have this straight, what you are really claiming is that evolutionary theory cannot explain why evolution did not stop with bacteria. Is that right? Do you think that that is what MET really predicts? Do you really think that the presence of any life forms more complex than bacteria invalidate MET? Man I guess all scientists are so stupid that no one ever thought of that before!

One more time, just to be clear. There is no necessary correlation between complexity and survival ability and there is no reason whatsoever why ordinary evolutionary process cannot result in increased complexity whether it increases survival ability or not. There is no reason why less complex forms cannot survive in some envronments and there is no reason why more complex forms cannot survive in some environments, or go extinct in some environments. There is no plan, there is no goal, there is no necessity, there is no end point.

Every gene family that has ever been produced by gene duplication followed by divergence shows that evolution can increase complexity. Every change in every developmental pathway that produces new structures shows that evolution can increase complexity. Every change that reduces complexity shows that there is no need for complexity to continually increase. Some of these changes were successful and survived, some were not successful and did not survive. That is simply what happened. It didn't have to happen that way, it just did.

Once again you have failed to provide any prediction that cannot be accounted for by MET. Does your hypothesis predict that evolution should have stopped with bacteria? If not, then you have no point whatsoever, if so, then you are completely wrong, which is it? MET does not predict that evolution will "quit" until all life forms are extinct. When exactly does your hypothesis predict that evolution should "quit"? Or is it once again indistinguishable from MET?

He also provides a heuristic for measuring the quantity of information, or degree of complexity (and he seems to consider them equivalent concepts). He says we can estimate information content of a species as the number of words needed to describe a member of that species in detail. By that measure, a lobster is more complex than a millipede.

"Every change in every developmental pathway that produces new structures shows that evolution can increase complexity."

We all know that evolution can increase complexity. We don't know that any particular theory can explain it.

"Does your hypothesis predict that evolution should have stopped with bacteria?"

No of course it doesn't, that's the whole point. Complexity theory predicts that complexity will increase. MET predicts that survival skills will increase. What we have seen is that evolution leads to increasing complexity. The struggle for survival and the drive towards complexity are two separate things, which MET has confused.

"Can you share with us the analysis that leads you to this conclusion? How scientific is the analysis?"

That was Dawkins' conclusion. Didn't I say that several times already?

We all know that evolution can increase complexity. We don’t know that any particular theory can explain it.

realpc wrote:

"No of course it doesn’t, that’s the whole point. Complexity theory predicts that complexity will increase. MET predicts that survival skills will increase. What we have seen is that evolution leads to increasing complexity. The struggle for survival and the drive towards complexity are two separate things, which MET has confused."

As I and others have made crystal clear already, this is completely wrong in every way. Please reread the above comments if you think this is in any way correct.

First, there is no such thing as "complexity theory". Second, MET abosolutely does not predict that survival skills will increase. Third, what we have seen is only that complexity can increase. Fourth, the struggle for survival and the increase in complexity are two sepoarate things that you have confused.

I have asked you repeatedly to provide some prediction of "complexity theory" that is in some way different from the predictions of MET. How bold of your theory to predict that more complex things than bacteria are expected to arise. You have once again steadfastly ignored the request to make some unique predictions. Since no one here cares what you think and no one else is going to be convinced of your claims in the absence of evidence, I suggest that we once again respectfully agree to disagree and end this so called conversation.

"there is no such thing as complexity theory"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_systems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_systems_theory

Interesting links but there is indeed no such thing as complexity theory. There is the study of complex systems, the study of developmental systems. It is important that one understands these differences.

That realpc is unable to make his argument based on a scientific foundation is quite telling: No, appealing to the musings of Dawkins who admits that the argument is somewhat inexact is not a convincing argument.

So far we have seen how evolutionary theory can very well explain increase in complexity.
What explanations does Realpc have for the observations which explain the data better than evolutionary theory?

So far realpc has failed to present a measure of complexity to support his claims. Complexity in Shannon sense is predicted to increase because of evolutionary processes, but that is not necessarily the kind of complexity realpc has in mind.

Why can realpc not defend, let alone define, a measure of complexity that makes sense, can be reliable measured?
Does realpc support the vacuous definition of complexity proposed by ID? If not, which one?... Dawkins' very rough outline of complexity? Surely you must jest.

# Selection is information (à la Shannon theory): The amount of information necessary to specify a system is obtained by enumerating the possible states and comparing them with the possible states of the description e.g. a bit string, or e.g. English language (at about 1 bit / character). This enables the systems to be enumerated and one of them specified. Selection as information is relevant to the issue of multiple selection: replication (reproduction) with variation, and comparative selection (competition) as a mechanism for POSSIBLE increase in complexity. Consistent with modern biological views of evolution it is essential to emphasize that selection does not have to increase complexity.

Our result suggests that complexity of multicellular organisms with differentiated cell types is a necessary course in evolution, once a multicellular unit emerges from cell aggregates. In fact, by carrying out the evolution experiment numerically, with mutation to reaction networks and selection of the cell ensembles with higher growth speed, we have confirmed that cells of the case (I) emerge and survive through evolution.

A theory is an hypothesis that has been tested many times and has not yet been falsified, not because it is not falsifiable, but because it has made accurate predictions that have been confirmed by experimental evidence. So, one last time, what predictions are made by this so called theory of complexity? How can it be distinguished from what is predicted by the MET? How has it been tested? What predictions have been confirmed? Where are the publications? Finding an entry on Wikipedia doesn't make something a real theory.

By the way, thanks for again ignoring all of my other points. Do you or do you not admit that there is no reason why evolution must increase survival ability as you claimed? If not, then once again you have made a demonstrably false claim. If so, then why did almost the entire dinosaur lineage go extinct after having evolved for nearly two hundred million years?

David Stanton,

You don't see how the Darwinist explanation (RM + NS, and some other things, but really basically RM + NS) could NOT result in progressive evolution. I don't see how it CAN.

There is not a single example of a more advanced species being created by artificial selection. No one has seen an advantageous mutation that results in an organism that is more complex (according to the usual meaning of the word "complex," and Dawkins' definition, if you agree to it) than its parents.

These things have not been seen in reality. You feel they must be possible, and that evolution as explained by MET would inevitably lead to them. This is a matter of philosophical faith, because there is no evidence, either experimental or observational, so far, that can decide one way or another.

All the observations of and experiments showing adaptation and survival under changing conditions do nothing to confirm that increasing complexity (as we ordinarily understand the word, or how Dawins' defined it, if you prefer that definition) results from RM +NS (plus sexual selection, genetic duplication, blah blah blah).

You can't see how any other explanation besides MET is needed, and MET seems right to you. MET seems very inadequate to me. I am simply evaluating the evidence. I do not see evidence that MET is the correct explanation. I do not think random variations can result in the creation of complex machinery, even if acted on by natural selection over billions of years.

I see the system of life on earth as intricate, efficient, elegant and complex. You see it as a pile of haphazard junk. We are not seeing the same reality.

There is no scientific evidence that can conclusively decide this philosophical argument at this time. The idea that evolution is creative cannot be dismissed, based on what is known at this time.

There is not a single example of a more advanced species being created by artificial selection. No one has seen an advantageous mutation that results in an organism that is more complex (according to the usual meaning of the word “complex,” and Dawkins’ definition, if you agree to it) than its parents.

The idea that evolution is creative cannot be dismissed, based on what is known at this time.

PvM said: He also provides a heuristic for measuring the quantity of information, or degree of complexity (and he seems to consider them equivalent concepts). He says we can estimate information content of a species as the number of words needed to describe a member of that species in detail. By that measure, a lobster is more complex than a millipede.

realpc said: Complexity theory predicts that complexity will increase.

realpc said: MET predicts that survival skills will increase.

realpc,

Once again you have ignored all my questions. Once again you have failed to provide any testable hypothesis, any predictions whatsoever and any evidence at all. Once again you have demonstrated your ignorance of MET and the scientific literature. Once again you have fallen back on the argument from increduality. Once again you have igonored all the evidence that has been provided for you.

I did not provide you with examples of adaptation and survival. I provided you with exactly what you asked for, a prime example of ordinary processes increasing information and increasing complexity. I urged you to read the thread by PZ on hox genes, obviously you have not. For anyone who is actually interested in evidence, here are a few more references regarding hox genes and phylogeny:

Nature 376:420-423 (1995)
Nature 388:682-686 (1997)
Nature 415:914-917 (2002)
Current Bio. 12:R291-R293 (2002)

Of course there are thousands of such references. Until you have at least read them, you have no basis for claiming what MET can and cannot account for. Until you can provide some evidence, you should have no reasonable expectation that anyone should should be persuaded by your opinions.

By the way, you are exactly right about one thing, we do see the universe completely differently. The difference is that my view is based on a lifetime of studying biology professionally, yours is based on nothing more than wishful thinking. Whose view do you suppose is likely to be more accurate?

"I urged you to read the thread by PZ on hox genes"

The point was that evolution has resulted in increasing complexity. Well yes it has, I certainly am not denying that. I am denying that scientists can cause this process to happen. Without that kind of experiment your defense of MET is based only on faith.

Scientists cannot create life or new species, neither with RM + NS nor with intelligent design.

Breeders have been creating new variations for thousands of years. And scientists have observed adaptation.

Evidence for the creation of a new species by RM + NS does not exist. How could it, since no one is able to create a new species, by any means?

Your only defense is that RM + NS can accomplish anything given enough time, and you can't see anything to prevent that.

I don't care if you're a professional biologists. I think most professional biologists are mistaken about evolution. There is political pressure -- either overt or subtle -- in any profession, for experts to agree with each other. The extreme emotions expressed at this web site are a good example of how political and unscientific professional science can be.

You may have noticed that many MET skeptics are not biologists. I think the revolution in evolution theory will occur in computer science, not biology.

How could it, since no one is able to create a new species, by any means?

realpc,

The validity of MET does not depend on the ability scientists to reproduce it. If it did, the same criticism could be leveled at your so called theory. It is sufficient to show that the process did indeed occur and that it can be reconstructed step by step. How many times do you have to be told that the burden of proof is on you if you insist that something more is required?

Or I could play along with your little game. What exactly is it that you are demanding? The point of the paper that PZ reviewed was that technology has now progressed sufficiently that researchers are able to examine the effects of several genes simultaneously. So, what if a researcher genetically engineered a fly with four copies of the hox gene complex and it increased in complexity? Would that satisfy you? Probably not, since I am sure that you would then claim that it only happened due to planning. But if so, I'm sure we will not have long to wait before the experiment is performed. In fact, maybe it already has been. Unless you are familiar witht the literature, how would you possibly know? How about if the gene duplications occurred spontaneously and resulted in an increase in complexity? Would that satisfy you? If it would then that is exactly what already happened. That is what the evidence shows. If that doesn't satisfy you then nothing will. Fortunately on one cares whether you are satisfied or not.

By the way, it is entirely possible that advances in the field of evolution could indeed come from computer science. But of course they will still have to be verified by experiments with real organisms so posers and biologist want-to-bes will still have to do some experiments.

You may have noticed that many MET skeptics are not biologists. I think the revolution in evolution theory will occur in computer science, not biology.

"It is sufficient to show that the process did indeed occur and that it can be reconstructed step by step. "

It can't be, and you know it. No one can show, step by step, how a new species was created by MET.

"The validity of MET does not depend on the ability scientists to reproduce it. If it did, the same criticism could be leveled at your so called theory."

That's right. I have never said ID is proven. I have said MET deserves to be criticized, since it is not a proven theory.

"what if a researcher genetically engineered a fly with four copies of the hox gene complex and it increased in complexity?"

If any organism is created artificially, is more complex (according to a reasonable definition) than other members of its species, and is viable and healthy, I would revise my opinion of MET. It would still be a deliberate creation, and not the result of RM +NS. But it would show that biologists have a much better understanding of life than they actually have.

Since it hasn't been done, there is no use speculating on whether it ever will be done.

Science is not religion. Believing that science can and eventually will accomplish everything it intends to accomplish, is an irrational faith.

That’s right. I have never said ID is proven. I have said MET deserves to be criticized, since it is not a proven theory.

"we observe that variation is random (in a particular sense of the word random), since we observe that natural selection happens, since we can arrange life nicely nested as expected from the theory, we have multiple independent lines of evidence supporting the fact that variation and selection play an important role in evolutionary history."

Yes, exactly, PvM. RM is observed, NS is observed, evolution is observed. You put them all together to get MET. But combining these separate observations is a decision independent of scientific data.

Science is about determining causality, which for any important question is extremely difficult. Biologists have settled on RM + NS as the cause of evolution, simply because they have no better explanation.

ID says that having nothing better is not a good enough reason to accept an explanation. Not everyone agrees that RM + NS is a good explanation for evolution. You have nothing better, but that does not justify proclaiming that you have the answer. Without scientific evidence that your explanation is correct, you can only present it as tentative.

That's all ID is asking -- qualify your statements about MET. It is not proven, it is not observed, it has not provided any definite answers. Give competing theories a chance, since yours is only speculative at this time.

Yes, exactly, PvM. RM is observed, NS is observed, evolution is observed. You put them all together to get MET. But combining these separate observations is a decision independent of scientific data. Science is about determining causality, which for any important question is extremely difficult. Biologists have settled on RM + NS as the cause of evolution, simply because they have no better explanation.

— Realpc

ID says that having nothing better is not a good enough reason to accept an explanation. Not everyone agrees that RM + NS is a good explanation for evolution. You have nothing better, but that does not justify proclaiming that you have the answer. Without scientific evidence that your explanation is correct, you can only present it as tentative.

— Realpc

That’s all ID is asking – qualify your statements about MET. It is not proven, it is not observed, it has not provided any definite answers. Give competing theories a chance, since yours is only speculative at this time.

For anyone who might be wondering about the ignorant claims made that scientists have neither observed the emergence of new species, nor created them, they have done both.

Also, as has been pointed out many times, gene duplication is established to occur beyond any reasonable doubt, and qualifies as an increase in complexity by any reasonable definition. So all this talk of no observations of increases in complexity are born of ignorance, and/or a dishonest agenda.

As I already pointed out, you have no idea if this experiment has already been done or not. As I already pointed out, no one cares if you revise your opinion or not.

So, if this is the game you want to play, fine. Where is your experimental evidence that reconstructs the "theory of complexity". Where has it been demonstrated in the laboratory? What experiment could you even propose, since I already proposed one? Where are the results published? Why the double standard?

By the way, we can show step by step how new species are created. Many have been produced in the laboratory and many have been observed in the process of speciation in nature. Once again, your ignorance of this literature is evidence only of your ignorance, nothing else.

I see you still cannot even begin to attempt to addess the hox example in any meaningful way. It is the perfect example of increased information and increased complexity.

here's my 1st shot at fisking - constructive critisism of my technique is appreciated :) my comments [in brackets]

RealPC said:
"ID says that having nothing better is not a good enough reason to accept an explanation"

[by your own admission then, ID is not scientific. the best explaination , AKA nothing better, for the observations/data will be conditionally accepted as the "true" explaination until "something better" comes along and makes better predictions/explainations of the observations/data]

real pc continues:
"Not everyone agrees that RM + NS is a good explanation for evolution."

[for all practical purposes - all scientists DO]

"You have nothing better, but that does not justify proclaiming that you have the answer. Without scientific evidence that your explanation is correct, you can only present it as tentative."

[actually is DOES justify proclaiming that we have "the answer"- at least until someone comes up with evidence that supports a theory that better explains the data---when/if someone does this a Nobel Prize will be forthcoming]

"That’s all ID is asking – qualify your statements about MET. It is not proven, it is not observed, it has not provided any definite answers."

[MET IS "proven" by nothing coming along to "dis-prove it" MET (and I think realpc means specialtion) HAS been observed, MET HAS and continues to provide definate answers - what question are you asking? some questions are beyong current scientific explaination]

"Give competing theories a chance, since yours is only speculative at this time"

[as soon as someone actually presents a competeing theory, the scientific commumity WILL "give it a chance". Einstien presented a competing thoery for gravity, Pasteur presented a competing thoery to the causes of deseases, there are MANY of other examples of old theories being replaced with competing theories- when there is EVIDENCE that the new theory explains better- So far ID has made presented nothing that is not better explained by MET. ALL sciense is tentative do you propose that every scientific theory be taught with a disclaimer ...*only a theory, can be revised at any time a better explaination copmes along.... what a load of crap, who could wite a textbook where every scientific explaination has such a disclaimer? "the earth's orbit around the sun is regulated by gravity and earth's distance from the sun *this explaination is only tentative and can be revised at anytime a better explaination comes along... ets etc. ad nauseum]

RealPC reveals the REAL problem that creationists have w/ evolution in his comment above about "definite answers" I think what he really is looking for are "Ultimate answers" or perhaps an "Ultimate cause" -(Which may never be found by science) and any cause that doesn't promote the one they already *know* to be *True* (from the Good Book) they consider a threat

PvM,

As I'm sure you know, Luskin has responded to our challenge. I have found a particularly funny flaw which I discuss here:

http://sciencethegapfiller.blogspot.com/2007/09/methinksluskinisconfusedaboutshannoninf.html

I am looking forward to take apart Luskin's 'response'. I had noticed his attempts and was fascinated by the simple observation that ID proponents seem to have shifted from evolutionary theory cannot explain the increase in information because it is fundamentally impossible for information to increase in the genome without intelligence, to evolutionary theory cannot provided the necessary level of detail for IDers to be forced to accept that evolutionary processes did lead to an increase in information.

Remember that ID had to accept that natural processes of variation and selection (as an example) can lead to an increase of information in the genome, and thus the argument (sic) shifted to 'show us a step by step pathway'. Even when some of such pathways were shown, ID was quick to trivialize them. After all, a Gap needs to be maintained at all cost for ID to hide its God.

In my cursory reading of Luskin, he seems to reject arguments involving gene duplication as lacking sufficient detail.

Even accepting his claims, it is simple to show that ID has even less to contribute to an explanation as it cannot even compete with the null hypothesis of 'we don't know'. In other words, even if we accept Luskin's claim that evolutionary theory is lacking in sufficient evidence, where sufficient is ever moved back further by ID, it is self evident that ID fully lacks in an explanation.

So what have we established so far

1. Evolutionary processes can increase information in the genome trivially.
2. Actual examples of such processes exist
3. ID complains that science lacks the step by step pathways and thus the examples remain 'suscpect'
4. ID however lacks ANY explanation
5. Gaps of our ignorance grow smaller
6. ID has to deny at all cost scientific evidence and progress

In other words, ID is not only lacking scientific content but it actually undermines the process of science.

As such, Luskin's attempts seem particularly ironic since in his desires to 'score a point against Dawkins' he has left the whole defensive line at the side lines, and opened up the game for easy scoring.

ID's fascination with Dawkins is ironically a cause for its existence and demise.

Well, I think it is fairly clear why they are targeting Dawkins. He wrote a book calling their designer a delusion. If you read part I and II of Luskin's response you will notice that he starts part II claiming that he has shown that Shannon Information is irrelevant to biology and that specified complexity is better....he did no such thing. He claimed by fiat that SI is not applicable. The literature clearly speaks against this. Scientists since JBS Haldane have been using SI in many aspects of biology, particulary in protein-DNA interactions. Who is using Dembski's theorems? No one. Check out my link above, Luskin uses a grammatical analogy and in so doing, misunderstands SI. Dawkins speaks redundantly about redundancy and SI- yet somehow Luskin still misses it. Gotta wonder about his reading comprehension.

You are correct about the gene-duplication thing too. He wants to see each and every mutation so that he can go through it with a fine-tooth comb. He should read "The God Delusion" where Dawkins talks about nonsense like this. If this had been court, I suppose Luskin (a lawyer) would demand a complete cinematic record of a murder to convict a criminal. In reality this is ridiculous. He also demands that to change from one sentence to another we have to go through step-by-step mutation. Such demands. He seems to exclude gene-elongation, insertions, etc. and is trying to force teleology into the discussion. We have a final sequence that the gene is trying to get to. Doesn't work that way.

JM Ridlon: Well, I think it is fairly clear why they are targeting Dawkins. He wrote a book calling their designer a delusion. If you read part I and II of Luskin's response you will notice that he starts part II claiming that he has shown that Shannon Information is irrelevant to biology and that specified complexity is better....he did no such thing. He claimed by

fiat that SI is not applicable. The literature clearly speaks against this. Scientists since JBS Haldane have been using SI in many aspects of biology, particulary in protein-DNA interactions. Who is using Dembski's theorems? No one. Check out my link above, Luskin uses a grammatical analogy and in so doing, misunderstands SI. Dawkins speaks redundantly about redundancy and SI- yet somehow Luskin still misses it. Gotta wonder about his reading comprehension.

You are correct about the gene-duplication thing too. He wants to see each and every mutation so that he can go through it with a fine-tooth comb. He should read "The God Delusion" where Dawkins talks about nonsense like this. If this had been court, I suppose Luskin (a lawyer) would demand a complete cinematic record of a murder to convict a criminal. In reality this is ridiculous. He also demands that to change from one sentence to another we have to go through step-by-step mutation. Such demands. He seems to exclude gene-elongation, insertions, etc. and is trying to force teleology into the discussion. We have a final sequence that the gene is trying to get to. Doesn't work that way.

Found a quote-mine:

http://sciencethegapfiller.blogspot.com/2007/09/luskin-quote-mine.html

Nice find of yet another luskin quote mine [YALQM]

PvM,

Wow, yet another quote-mine by Luskin and funny bits of irony.

http://sciencethegapfiller.blogspot.com/2007/10/casey-luskin-strikes-fools-gold.html