Game over for antievolutionary No Free Lunch argument

"The smoothness present in those models does not derive from some notion of weak long-range physics, but rather from telelogy as explored in my various papers on them."

Well, considering all of the evidence that evolution has indeed occurred and the complete lack of evidence for any intelligent designer, the burden of proof is on those who would claim that evolution is impossible. And having failed to demonstrate this, they cannot now decline the burden, simply because of pig headedness. As usual, they probably don't even realize just how devastating this latest admission is. Man, no wonder Dembski decided to call it quits. Even he must now realize that he never had anything at all convincing. Way to go Joe!

The smoothness present in those models does not derive from some notion of weak long-range physics, but rather from telelogy as explored in my various papers on them.

DS said: Well, considering all of the evidence that evolution has indeed occurred and the complete lack of evidence for any intelligent designer, the burden of proof is on those who would claim that evolution is impossible. And having failed to demonstrate this, they cannot now decline the burden, simply because of pig headedness. As usual, they probably don't even realize just how devastating this latest admission is. Man, no wonder Dembski decided to call it quits. Even he must now realize that he never had anything at all convincing. Way to go Joe!

Kevin said: Thus is easily shown. There are many experiments that one could look at, determine the smoothness of the fitness landscape of the reality rather than the model.

stevaroni said: Reasonable people would look at that and understand that the models are wrong because all the evidence shows that bumblebees are, in fact, airworthy. The DI looks at the model and argues that bumblebees don't exist.

stevaroni said: The DI looks at the model and argues that bumblebees don't exist.

Thanks, Nick (and thanks, DS). I hope to post a more specific reply to Ewert's recent ENV posts here in the next few days.

The whole point of Dembski's Complex Specified Information argument, and his No Free Lunch argument, and the more recent Search For a Search argument, was to present some math that showed that evolution could not lead to the good adaptations that we see, or that it could only if there was a Design Intervention. And the whole point of our refutations was that the math did not work to establish that there is some such barrier.

It was they who were presenting an impossibility proof (or an extreme improbability proof).

Now suddenly, in Winston Ewert's hands, the argument is about something else. It seems that the burden was on us. It was not good enough to show that evolutionary forces such as natural selection were in principle capable of doing the job. It was not good enough to show that there was no mathematical argument preventing that.

No, apparently, according to Ewert, we have to demonstrate that all these adaptations, in all these species, can actually be achieved.

A brief reading of anything by Dembski or Ewert will make it clear that they did in fact intend to present an impossibility-or-extreme-improbability proof. And they just haven't got one.

Well that's pretty typical. They didn't really understand their argument and so, inadvertently destroyed it. And they did this without realizing that they had in fact given up the one critical point. So to review, all Dembski has proven is that evolution will not work given completely unrealistic assumptions about fitness landscapes. What he has not provided is:

1) Evidence that evolution cannot work in the real world

2) Evidence that evolution has not worked in the real world

3) Any alternative explanation for how all of the adaptations occurred (except some vague mumbo jumbo about how god is somehow still required don't ya just know it)

And this after twenty years of mathematical obfuscation.

It's a little late to be shifting the burden of proof now guys. Why should we have to show that something is theoretically possible when we have evidence that it did in fact already occur? Why should we have to explain anything, unless and until they address all of the available evidence first? I say, stick Dembski's face in the chromosome data. Make him come up with an explanation that is better than descent with modification. Make him admit to common descent of humans. Then even die hard dead heads like Floyd won't have a leg left to stand on.

Won't they just now claim this proves the physics is designed?

Joe Felsenstein said: A brief reading of anything by Dembski or Ewert will make it clear that they did in fact intend to present an impossibility-or-extreme-improbability proof. And they just haven't got one.

"Felsenstein, in particular, argues that the ordinary laws of physics, with their weakness of long-range interactions, lead to fitness surfaces much smoother than white-noise fitness surfaces.”

"Darwinian evolution has to account for finding rare protein folds and complex functional systems."

I figured I might as well correct Ewert's statement:

"The smoothness present in those models does not derive from some notion of weak long-range physics, but rather from magic as explored in my various papers on them."

-W. Ewert, Baylor aka Texas Hogwarts

Ravi said: From the blog: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/the_guc_bug101391.html

"Darwinian evolution has to account for finding rare protein folds and complex functional systems."

What do Felsenstein and English have to say about natural selection, by way of random exploration, finding extremely improbable protein folds (out of a near infinite number of amino acid sequence combinations)? Obfuscating the subject with math can't overcome the formidable biophysical/chemical problem at hand.

Ravi said: From the blog: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/the_guc_bug101391.html

"Darwinian evolution has to account for finding rare protein folds and complex functional systems."

What do Felsenstein and English have to say about natural selection, by way of random exploration, finding extremely improbable protein folds (out of a near infinite number of amino acid sequence combinations)? Obfuscating the subject with math can't overcome the formidable biophysical/chemical problem at hand.

I don't understand why protein folds are considered "hard".

See P.Z.Myer's recent post on the subject.

Sure, proteins can fold in an almost infinite number of ways. Sure, figuring out the sequence for a given folding pattern (shall we say, a "specified" pattern) is an NP-hard problem, computationally. But, the proteins aren't "computing" anything, and there is no specific "target". Proteins are going to fold in some way, no matter what. Once you have a mechanism that folds a protein, if that folded configuration is useful, and if the "mechanism" is heritable, then "Evolution".

My mental image is that sequences of amino acids are like building blocks; strange shaped building blocks to be sure: some curlicues, some funny ribbons, and the like, but building blocks none the less. The mechanism of the cell takes these building blocks and builds interesting three-dimensional objects out of them (i.e. folded proteins). If the blocks don't fit together, or if the resulting three-dimensional object isn't "useful" (in some sense), then the cell (over time or over generations) will stop making those proteins, and will make something else.

Sure, the protein-folding "space" that can be "explored" is huge, but there are lots of bacteria doing the "exploring". Wiki has an estimate of the number of bacteria in the world of 6x10³⁰. If each cell folds one protein every second, in 3 billion years that's ~10⁴⁶ operations, where each operation could be considered a "computation".

Yeah, the DI folks keep talking about really big scary probabilities. Even if you ignore contingency and take their simplistic probabilities at face value, they keep ignoring the really, really big numbers of cells cranking away on these "problems" in parallel, making the probability of finding something that is "useful" to be almost a certainty in very short order.

Why is this "search" considered "hard"?

Oh, and "building blocks". Once the cell has "learned" how to fold a particular set of amino acids into a curlicue (for example), it doesn't have to figure out that whole sequence again for the next protein, or the next. In fact, once it's figured out how to fold a sequence of amino acids into a single helical loop (like a locking washer), the cell doesn't have to figure it out again, just to make the curlicue longer. It just repeats the pattern "X" times. That's the "contingency" part, which the DI completely ignores when it uses the simplistic probability computations of "random" events.

(In the following, I'm totally mangling the words, particularly of "probability", but I'm no expert, no biologist, chemist, or mathematician. So sue me. I'm just trying to get the gist right, using those "big number" that the DI is so fond of)

Let's say (for example) that a single coil in a curlicue requires 10 amino acids. (I have no idea what a "curlicue" is, but such a pattern keeps showing in the simple stick pictures that I see of folded proteins. It looks like a corkscrew or "curlicue", so that's what I'm calling it. Given how common it seems to be, I'm sure there's a name for it.) Let's say you have a coil that is 10 loops long, for a total length of 100 amino acids. If the raw probability of combining each amino acid is "X", then the probability of randomly combining those 100 amino acids together would be X¹⁰⁰, which is prohibitively large, no matter what the base "X" is. It's a big, scary, Intelligently Designed number.

But building the curlicue isn't "random" at all. Let's say that the first loop of ten amino acids was built "randomly", requiring X¹⁰ "steps" of some sort. (Even that's not very big. 2¹⁰ is just 1,024, which isn't that big.) But the next loop isn't random at all. It's just repeating the first loop, giving X¹⁰*X, or X¹¹. For the total 100 amino acid chain, the total "probability" reduces from X¹⁰⁰ down to just X¹⁹, which is a much more manageable number.

Building blocks simply aren't "random". Any kid with a set of Lego bricks can tell you that.

Nick Matzke said: Protein folds are the emergency backup-backup-backup argument after claims about specified complexity, "evolution can't produce new information", "evolution can't produce new genes", etc., have been debunked and tacitly abandoned. Most protein folds are very widespread (shared not just among animals but across eukaryotes and often prokaryotes also) so their origins must be very ancient -- the argument that Meyer, Luskin etc. have been making lately, which is that a whole bunch of new protein folds had to originate in the Cambrian Explosion, is just ignorant crazypants.

"Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences."

So the origin of protein folds will typically be rarer and more ancient than almost anything short of the origin of life itself, and thus harder to study. But all that said, there is nevertheless a lot that can be said. In fact, there are known cases where tiny amounts of mutation can convert one protein fold into another one.

Scott F said: Why is this "search" considered "hard"?

We disagree in that I do not think that is going to be a sufficient source of active information to account for biology. I do not have a proof of this. But neither does Felsenstein have a demonstration that it will produce sufficient active information.

Tom English said: The Law of Conservation of Information Is Defunct.

Ravi said: But let me ask, again, how is Felsenstein - a theoretical population geneticist and bioinformatician - capable of commenting on the biophysics of protein function and structure? Has he published any research on the subject?

DS said: But let me ask, again, how is Ravi - who probably isn't even a biologist of any kind - capable of commenting on the biophysics of protein function and structure? Has he published any research on the subject? If you want to play the authority game, creationists always lose. Why they go there I don't know.

I do not think that is going to be a sufficient source of active information to account for biology. I do not have a proof of this. But neither does Felsenstein have a demonstration that it will produce sufficient active information.

Ravi,

This thread is about the No Free Lunch theorem and how the ID guys have tried to use it, not the origin of protein folds. C'mon, let's have it, do you agree that it was correct for the ID guys to say that the No Free Lunch theorem had implications for evolution, given that the No Free Lunch theorem is a statement about searches averaged over all possible fitness functions (most of which will be totally random and thus ridiculously rough), when biological evolution is functioning in a world with laws of physics that specify all sorts of smooth and smooth-ish gradients everywhere (temperature, precipitation, nutrient levels, etc.).

Re: origin of protein folds. Have you read Nick Grishin? Have you bothered to Google Scholar the origin of hox genes? Do you think there is any chance that hox domains are part of a larger class of protein structures with a wider distribution? You obviously didn't bother to check -- why not? Are you lazy? Do you think being an ID proponent gives you the right to just say stuff and accidentally be right about it without bothering to do the bare minimum of due diligence on the topic? Why do you think anyone working in real science should take you ID guys seriously when we do have Google Scholar abilities and can clearly see you aren't doing the basic background research to even get to the starting point of an informed discussion on the matter?

Ravi said:

Scott F said: Why is this "search" considered "hard"?

Because it is blind. The independently foliding homeodomain, for example, contains 60 amino acid residues. The number of possible amino acid combinations for a sequence of that length is 1.153 * 10^78. That is roughly the number of electrons in the entire universe! Now, the homeodomain sequence is variable, of course, but only up to a point. The chance of a random search finding such a sequence is effectively zero.

Natural selection only works if there is something useful to select.

Assuming a smooth fitness landscape, with incremental steps along the way, is just nonsense.

Ravi said:

Scott F said: Why is this "search" considered "hard"?

Because it is blind. The independently foliding homeodomain, for example, contains 60 amino acid residues. The number of possible amino acid combinations for a sequence of that length is 1.153 * 10^78. That is roughly the number of electrons in the entire universe! Now, the homeodomain sequence is variable, of course, but only up to a point. The chance of a random search finding such a sequence is effectively zero. Natural selection only works if there is something useful to select. Assuming a smooth fitness landscape, with incremental steps along the way, is just nonsense.

Oooh, oooh, oooh, pick me; I can do this one! This is almost exactly like the problem of finding 500 flips of a coin coming up all heads! There are 118 chemical elements. The number of repeated atoms of exactly copper in 64 grams is 6x10^23. (I looked up moles in a dictionary) Therefore the odds of finding an assembly of atoms that came up all copper atoms 6x10^23 times in a row is one out of 118^(6x10^23). Conclusion: You will never find such and arrangement of copper atoms in the lifetime of the universe unless it was intelligently designed.

Ravi said:

DS said: But let me ask, again, how is Ravi - who probably isn't even a biologist of any kind - capable of commenting on the biophysics of protein function and structure? Has he published any research on the subject? If you want to play the authority game, creationists always lose. Why they go there I don't know.

It isn't about authority. It is about knowledge. Felsenstein and English, and also Dembski for that matter, are talking about algortithmic searches that don't have anything of consequence to say about the biophysics of protein folding. Hence, whatever they come up with, may well by biologically meaningless. Felsenstein can't make sweeping claims about the physics of the fitness landscape of protein evolution without actually doing some experimental research of his own.

Nick Matzke said:This thread is about the No Free Lunch theorem and how the ID guys have tried to use it, not the origin of protein folds. C'mon, let's have it, do you agree that it was correct for the ID guys to say that the No Free Lunch theorem had implications for evolution, given that the No Free Lunch theorem is a statement about searches averaged over all possible fitness functions (most of which will be totally random and thus ridiculously rough), when biological evolution is functioning in a world with laws of physics that specify all sorts of smooth and smooth-ish gradients everywhere (temperature, precipitation, nutrient levels, etc.).

Re: origin of protein folds. Have you read Nick Grishin? Have you bothered to Google Scholar the origin of hox genes? Do you think there is any chance that hox domains are part of a larger class of protein structures with a wider distribution? You obviously didn't bother to check -- why not? Are you lazy? Do you think being an ID proponent gives you the right to just say stuff and accidentally be right about it without bothering to do the bare minimum of due diligence on the topic? Why do you think anyone working in real science should take you ID guys seriously when we do have Google Scholar abilities and can clearly see you aren't doing the basic background research to even get to the starting point of an informed discussion on the matter?

DS said: So it's about knowledge. Well, you certainly haven't proven that you are qualified Joe Felsenstein is a real biologist, so am I for that matter. And while we are on the subject, no real biologist, you know the guys with all of the knowledge about real biology,. have concluded that evolution could not happen. None. So, according to your own logic. all of the people with the knowledge agree and Bill has no right to even question that conclusion, because he has absolutely no knowledge or understanding of biology. Therefore, Joe's qualifications a are irrelevant, since no real response to a fake challenge was ever needed. Glad we got that straight.

Ravi said: Biological evolution does, indeed, encounter the problem of rough fitness landscapes.

Yardbird said:

Ravi said: Biological evolution does, indeed, encounter the problem of rough fitness landscapes.

Describe just one.

"Based on the landscapes of these two different surfaces, it appears possible for adaptive walks with only random substitutions to climb with relative ease up to the middle region of the fitness landscape from any primordial or random sequence, whereas an enormous range of sequence diversity is required to climb further up the rugged surface above the middle region."

Yardbird said:

Ravi said: Biological evolution does, indeed, encounter the problem of rough fitness landscapes.

Describe just one.

Ravi said:

DS said: So it's about knowledge. Well, you certainly haven't proven that you are qualified Joe Felsenstein is a real biologist, so am I for that matter. And while we are on the subject, no real biologist, you know the guys with all of the knowledge about real biology,. have concluded that evolution could not happen. None. So, according to your own logic. all of the people with the knowledge agree and Bill has no right to even question that conclusion, because he has absolutely no knowledge or understanding of biology. Therefore, Joe's qualifications a are irrelevant, since no real response to a fake challenge was ever needed. Glad we got that straight.

Felsenstein is not a biophysicist and has published no research in biophysics. His expertise is in phylogenetics, mathematics and bioinformatics. He has not shown how evolution can overcome extremely rough fitness landscapes that separate potentially functional sequences.

stevaroni said:

Yardbird said:

Ravi said: Biological evolution does, indeed, encounter the problem of rough fitness landscapes.

Describe just one.

Krakatoa. A lush, tropical Indonesian island one day, and a wasteland the next. Aside from all the critters outright killed, any (tiny) survivors would have to struggle in an environment that was suddenly dramatically different from anything they had been adapted to. Some did struggle back, of course, but many did not. (Much of the current Krakatoa biome came in from other islands) Likewise, the K-T extinction event. Once upon a time there were likely large predatory theropods disturbingly close to wherever you're reading this. Then, not. Mammals and the smaller proto-birds, which were more adaptable and could live through the bigger discontinuities in the definition of "fitness" survived, big lizards dependent on a very specific ecosystem, not so much. In a less dramatic vein, how about the recession of the last ice age? A fairly gradual and (on a global scale) not terribly dramatic shift in the environment, and many, many kinds of animals were easily able to ride it through, but the specialized and slow-breeding woolly mammoths were unable to adapt quickly enough and died. Or the introduction of the rabbit and cane toad to Australia? A truly tiny change in most environments that would quickly be absorbed on to the local lunch menu, but still disastrous to the native fauna down under who were highly specialized in their tiny niches and consequently didn't have time to adapt to even a small shift.

Ravi said:

Tom English said: The Law of Conservation of Information Is Defunct.

And, yet, all of the empirical evidence suggests that genetic/biochemical information is pervasively conserved by natural selection,

Ravi said:

DS said: So it's about knowledge. Well, you certainly haven't proven that you are qualified Joe Felsenstein is a real biologist, so am I for that matter. And while we are on the subject, no real biologist, you know the guys with all of the knowledge about real biology,. have concluded that evolution could not happen. None. So, according to your own logic. all of the people with the knowledge agree and Bill has no right to even question that conclusion, because he has absolutely no knowledge or understanding of biology. Therefore, Joe's qualifications a are irrelevant, since no real response to a fake challenge was ever needed. Glad we got that straight.

Felsenstein is not a biophysicist and has published no research in biophysics. His expertise is in phylogenetics, mathematics and bioinformatics. He has not shown how evolution can overcome extremely rough fitness landscapes that separate potentially functional sequences.

Joe Felsenstein said: No, this is not a discussion of protein folding etc.

I documented that Dembski, Ewert, and Marks interpreted their Active Information calculation as showing that when evolution successfully results in higher fitness, that this can only be because a Designer has shaped the fitness surface. I argued that the mere presence of genotypes that have phenotypes, and considerations of physical laws would bring about a considerable amount of Active Information.

Ravi objected that I was not a physicist. So we await Ravi's counterargument -- can Ravi show that when there is a smoother-than-white-noise fitness surface, that this must result from Design? We await Ravi's explanation of how a superior knowledge of physics shows this.

eric said: But I could always be wrong. So wow me Ravi. Explain to me the definition of genotypic information under which copy increases and decreases conserve information.

Nobody claims that some adaptations are possible by purely random changes. The Design argument is that there are formidable fitness barriers, evident in the biochemistry and biophysics of proteins,that prevent evolution from progressing beyond a limited scope for adaptive change.

Mike Elzinga said:

Ravi said:

Scott F said: Why is this "search" considered "hard"?

Because it is blind. The independently foliding homeodomain, for example, contains 60 amino acid residues. The number of possible amino acid combinations for a sequence of that length is 1.153 * 10^78. That is roughly the number of electrons in the entire universe! Now, the homeodomain sequence is variable, of course, but only up to a point. The chance of a random search finding such a sequence is effectively zero. Natural selection only works if there is something useful to select. Assuming a smooth fitness landscape, with incremental steps along the way, is just nonsense.

Here is a basic ID/creationist puzzle for Ravi to do some ID/creationist critical thinking about. What are the odds of finding a nugget of copper that has a mass in the vicinity of, say, 64 grams? Here is the ID/creationist answer almost verbatim.

Oooh, oooh, oooh, pick me; I can do this one! This is almost exactly like the problem of finding 500 flips of a coin coming up all heads! There are 118 chemical elements. The number of repeated atoms of exactly copper in 64 grams is 6x10^23. (I looked up moles in a dictionary) Therefore the odds of finding an assembly of atoms that came up all copper atoms 6x10^23 times in a row is one out of 118^(6x10^23). Conclusion: You will never find such and arrangement of copper atoms in the lifetime of the universe unless it was intelligently designed.

Ravi said:

eric said: But I could always be wrong. So wow me Ravi. Explain to me the definition of genotypic information under which copy increases and decreases conserve information.

I am not using any particular definition of information. I am merely stating that natural selection tends to conserve DNA sequences to much more of an extent than it does to alter them. If this were not the case, the field of comparative genomics would be extremely difficult.

Ravi said: Nobody claims that some adaptations are possible by purely random changes. The Design argument is that there are formidable fitness barriers, evident in the biochemistry and biophysics of proteins,that prevent evolution from progressing beyond a limited scope for adaptive change.

Ravi said:

Joe Felsenstein said: ... Ravi objected that I was not a physicist. So we await Ravi's counterargument -- can Ravi show that when there is a smoother-than-white-noise fitness surface, that this must result from Design? We await Ravi's explanation of how a superior knowledge of physics shows this.

Nobody claims that some adaptations are possible by purely random changes. The Design argument is that there are formidable fitness barriers, evident in the biochemistry and biophysics of proteins,that prevent evolution from progressing beyond a limited scope for adaptive change.

Yardbird said: I could infer from these examples that a landscape is (are?) the changes in an organism's environmental conditions over time. Would it be reasonable to also say that a landscape is the changes in conditions that an organism encounters as it moves or attempts to move from one physical location to another?

stevaroni said: The tricky thing is that "fitness" is a moving target because the fitness landscape keeps changing, both because of physical events (climate, volcanoes, meteors) and because of the other players in the biome. A strategy that works today might be useless tomorrow with the arrival of new competition or a better predator.

Ravi said:

Scott F said: Why is this "search" considered "hard"?

Because it is blind.

Ravi said:

Scott F said: Why is this "search" considered "hard"?

Because it is blind. The independently foliding homeodomain, for example, contains 60 amino acid residues. The number of possible amino acid combinations for a sequence of that length is 1.153 * 10^78. That is roughly the number of electrons in the entire universe! Now, the homeodomain sequence is variable, of course, but only up to a point. The chance of a random search finding such a sequence is effectively zero. Natural selection only works if there is something useful to select. Assuming a smooth fitness landscape, with incremental steps along the way, is just nonsense.

Joe Felsenstein said: Can you explain how this relates to the Dembski-Ewert-Marks argument that if there is a smooth fitness surface then Design is implicated in setting that up? I can't see the connection.

Nick Matzke said: "Tends" does not equal "conservation law". It means "sometimes". Please admit, then, that the claim that there is a "law of conservation of information" is incorrect.

Mike Elzinga said: Explain what a "formidable fitness barrier" is.

Scott F said: So? There is no "goal" in this search. There is no need to be able to "see" the top of the next mountain, or the one after that. Even a random walk is sufficient to explore the fitness landscape in some direction. Combine a bunch of amino acids randomly, and you're going to form some kind of protein. If it isn't useful, it will be replaced. If it is useful, it will tend to be conserved. I repeat, why is this considered to be "hard"?

Ravi said:

Nick Matzke said: "Tends" does not equal "conservation law". It means "sometimes". Please admit, then, that the claim that there is a "law of conservation of information" is incorrect.

Well, the really important regions of the genome - about 5% - are stringently conserved. But Dembski has a different concept of information. He links it with the environment. His idea of the conservation of information has more to do with the way in which information is transformed into different states just as energy is. So, an intelligent designer can transfer his/her information to an organism by imposing certain conditions and making it respond to them.

Rolf said: I would like to know more about the barriers that prevent evolution to progress beyond a limited scope. Looking at the broader picture of evolution, where can we detec or observe the limited scope in action?

From what you wrote, it appears like you see limits that prevent a species from adapting (beyond a limited scope)to the environment, meaning it is doomed to extinction. Is that it? Extinction instead of survival, unless the designer intervene. I would like to know more about supernatural intervention in biology.

But in order to keep life going, the designer is busy all the time? What I see is life "slowly" adapting, establishing a shift in the distribution of alleles in a population. What exactly is it that prevents that from continuing?

Ravi said: Well, a random walk can involve taking one step forward and two steps back.

A blind man will never find his way to the top of the Eiffel Tower, according to Mike Behe.

What you have in Darwinian evolution is a mechanism that allows living organisms to make minor adjustments in response to environmental changes without the need for any external intervention. Dembski sees this as good design.

Ravi said: So, an intelligent designer can transfer his/her information to an organism by imposing certain conditions and making it respond to them.

Ravi said: What limits natural selection are rugged fitness landscapes. If the landscape isn't paved with adaptive paths, then evolution won't have any where to traverse. It won't go there. …. No. I think most species can adapt to most changes in the environment. Obviously, many cannot and they go extinct. But adaptation is not the same thing as innovation which most likely requires design.

stevaroni said: If I were covering a floor I could design a strategy to quickly and efficiently roll some paint on it and be done in an hour, or, I could allow a bunch of cats to step in paint and track it all over. That's not efficient or elegant, but after days or weeks there would be few spots on the floor more than a couple of inches away from a paw print. There'd probably even be paint in places I never expected.

Ravi said: There is plenty of evidence that random mutations can have beneficial effects.

Yardbird said: What is the mechanism by which those conditions are imposed?

Scott F said: Perhaps you would care to argue this point with our resident creationists, who maintain that all mutations are detrimental, by the definition of "mutation".

Ravi said:

Mike Elzinga said: Explain what a "formidable fitness barrier" is.

One which would require multiple, simultaneous changes in the right places to occur for any fitness to be gained.

Scott F said:

Ravi said: What limits natural selection are rugged fitness landscapes. If the landscape isn't paved with adaptive paths, then evolution won't have any where to traverse. It won't go there. …. No. I think most species can adapt to most changes in the environment. Obviously, many cannot and they go extinct. But adaptation is not the same thing as innovation which most likely requires design.

These two statements appear to contradict each other. Rugged fitness landscapes limit natural selection, yet most species can adapt to most changes in the environment. One of these things is not like the other.

Scott F said: Some mutations can even add new dimensions to the fitness landscape that didn't exist before, because the genome itself can change the fitness landscape that it is exploring. Think nylonase.

Ravi said:

Yardbird said: What is the mechanism by which those conditions are imposed?

I believe it is called artificial selection.

Ravi said:

Scott F said: Some mutations can even add new dimensions to the fitness landscape that didn't exist before, because the genome itself can change the fitness landscape that it is exploring. Think nylonase.

The latest research shows that "nylonase" is not a new enzyme, but rather a pre-existing hydrolase that was tinkered with and only involved two mutations. Generating a new enzyme, with its own distinctive domain and fold, is beyond the scope of natural evolution.

Ravi said:

Joe Felsenstein said: Can you explain how this relates to the Dembski-Ewert-Marks argument that if there is a smooth fitness surface then Design is implicated in setting that up? I can't see the connection.

A fitness landscape could be "smoothed out" by artifical means. This is what Dembski may mean by a "finely crafted assemblage." In some ways, those who practice the "directed" evolution of novel proteins do just that in the lab. But natural evolution is always undirected and unaided. Dembski also appears to be responding in his books to Kauffman's idea that Nature has inherent self-organizing properties that provide the fitness functions that make Darwinian evolution possible. Anyway, this is all very nebulous and arcane if taken out of the context of the quantum mechanics of biophysics.

Ravi said:

Yardbird said: What is the mechanism by which those conditions are imposed?

I believe it is called artificial selection.

Yardbird said: You misunderstand me. How does the designer effect the external intervention? X-rays? Magnetic fields? Spooky action at a distance?

Scott F said: You have just described Evolution. Taking what already exists and tinkering with it until it is useful.

Scott F said: What is the difference between "artificial" selection, and "natural" selection? How does "artificial" selection overcome the "barriers" that you say are imposed by your rugged fitness landscape? Remember, "artificial" selection can only work with "natural" mutations, the same as "natural" selection does.

Ravi said:

Yardbird said: You misunderstand me. How does the designer effect the external intervention? X-rays? Magnetic fields? Spooky action at a distance?

According to Ken Miller in his book, "Finding Darwin's God", the creator could make some mutations more likely to occur than others by availing of the indeterminancy principle of quantum theory.

Ravi said:

Mike Elzinga said: Explain what a "formidable fitness barrier" is.

One which would require multiple, simultaneous changes in the right places to occur for any fitness to be gained.

Ravi said:

Scott F said: You have just described Evolution. Taking what already exists and tinkering with it until it is useful.

But tweaking and tinkering, .e. making small adjustments and modifications, has its natural limits. If you continue to tweak then you run up against a fitness abyss.

Yardbird said:

Ravi said:

Yardbird said: You misunderstand me. How does the designer effect the external intervention? X-rays? Magnetic fields? Spooky action at a distance?

According to Ken Miller in his book, "Finding Darwin's God", the creator could make some mutations more likely to occur than others by availing of the indeterminancy principle of quantum theory.

And how would the creator avail of the indeterminancy principle?

Ravi, you wrote lots of incorrect nonsense, such as:

"No. Darwinian evolution ensures that life remains robust and versatile. But the limit of this mechanism, “the edge of evolution” as Behe describes it, is such that design interventions are necessary, such as for the creation of a new protein domain and fold or a new body plan."

RIght, he claims this, he just hasn't demonstrated it. You do know that new body plans can be produced without the need for new proteins domains, right? You do know that the hox genes are conserved throughout the entire animal kingdom, right? Or is evo devo another field that you have no knowledge of?

"Creationists dispute the idea of wholly beneficial mutations, without any cost, which confer not just an increase in reproductive fitness but also in function. This remains controversial."

The fact that creationist dispute something does not make it controversial. The fact that they are beneficial mutations is indisputable. Why on earth would thy have to have no cost? You are just making up nonsense.

"One which would require multiple, simultaneous changes in the right places to occur for any fitness to be gained."

No, you have fallen for creationist propaganda once again. Why on earth would the changes have to be simultaneous? Why on earth would they have to all be selected on? Why on earth couldn't they just happen and stick around until the other mutations arose? The answer is that they obviously can and that they do just that.

"The latest research shows that “nylonase” is not a new enzyme, but rather a pre-existing hydrolase that was tinkered with and only involved two mutations. Generating a new enzyme, with its own distinctive domain and fold, is beyond the scope of natural evolution."

RIght. That;s the way evolution works. The bacteria doesn't care if it is new enzyme or not. It evolved a new function.

"Natural selection can only choose what is of immediate benefit to the organism. That is a major limitation."

Yes it certainly is. But it does not prevent neutral variation for arising, persisting and even spreading. This represents the raw material on which selection can act if the environment changes. It's almost as if you have no knowledge of population genetics whatsoever.

You seem to have fallen for every creationist ploy in the play book. You also seem to lack the knowledge that all of these things are just a scam. You seem to think that the Gish gallop is going to work here. You seem to have forgotten what the topic of the thread is. So far you have completely failed to make any relevant point whatsoever. When trolls like you show up and try to disrupt conversations with piles of nonsense, they are usually dumped to the bathroom wall. All further responses by me to you will be there. Drop in if you dare, but we don't have to be so polite there.

Ravi said:

Scott F said:

Ravi said: What limits natural selection are rugged fitness landscapes. If the landscape isn't paved with adaptive paths, then evolution won't have any where to traverse. It won't go there. …. No. I think most species can adapt to most changes in the environment. Obviously, many cannot and they go extinct. But adaptation is not the same thing as innovation which most likely requires design.

These two statements appear to contradict each other. Rugged fitness landscapes limit natural selection, yet most species can adapt to most changes in the environment. One of these things is not like the other.

You misunderstood me. Species can adapt, but there are natural limits to how much they can change by. Mike Behe explains this in his book, "Edge of Evolution". It is a good read.

Ravi said: I am not using any particular definition of information. I am merely stating that natural selection tends to conserve DNA sequences to much more of an extent than it does to alter them. If this were not the case, the field of comparative genomics would be extremely difficult.

Ravi said: Well, the really important regions of the genome - about 5% - are stringently conserved. But Dembski has a different concept of information. He links it with the environment. His idea of the conservation of information has more to do with the way in which information is transformed into different states just as energy is. So, an intelligent designer can transfer his/her information to an organism by imposing certain conditions and making it respond to them.

Mike Elzinga said:

Ravi said: But tweaking and tinkering, .e. making small adjustments and modifications, has its natural limits. If you continue to tweak then you run up against a fitness abyss.

"Fitness abyss?" You are making up crap again.

Ravi said:

Yardbird said: You misunderstand me. How does the designer effect the external intervention? X-rays? Magnetic fields? Spooky action at a distance?

According to Ken Miller in his book, "Finding Darwin's God", the creator could make some mutations more likely to occur than others by availing of the indeterminancy principle of quantum theory.

Ravi says: "But adaptation is not the same thing as innovation which most likely requires design."

Most likely? So, you just said that adaptation "could" provide innovation since design is only "most likely" and not "definitely."

Is that correct?

Second, how does artificial selection, animal breeding I suppose, differ from intelligent design? It seems to me there's no difference between breeding long legged sheep to get longer legged sheep, using only nature and sheep reproduction to do the job, than it would be for nature to produce longer legged sheep because to sheep they're more sexy.

What's the difference?

Ravi said:

Scott F said: Some mutations can even add new dimensions to the fitness landscape that didn't exist before, because the genome itself can change the fitness landscape that it is exploring. Think nylonase.

The latest research shows that "nylonase" is not a new enzyme, but rather a pre-existing hydrolase that was tinkered with and only involved two mutations. Generating a new enzyme, with its own distinctive domain and fold, is beyond the scope of natural evolution.

Enzymes /ˈɛnzaɪmz/ are macromolecular biological catalysts. Enzymes accelerate, or catalyze, chemical reactions.

Ravi said:

Scott F said: Some mutations can even add new dimensions to the fitness landscape that didn't exist before, because the genome itself can change the fitness landscape that it is exploring. Think nylonase.

The latest research shows that "nylonase" is not a new enzyme, but rather a pre-existing hydrolase that was tinkered with and only involved two mutations. Generating a new enzyme, with its own distinctive domain and fold, is beyond the scope of natural evolution.

What Ravi, and all the rest of the creationists who claim evolutionary change is too improbable to happen, fail to understand is that the alternative hypothesis - God employed magic to accomplish the change - is infinitely less probable. That's why it's called magic.

Rumraket said: What an absurd reply. Are you even aware of how diverse the hydrolase class of enzymatic catalysts is? The mere fact that it is "still a hydrolase" is functionally equivalent to saying "but it is still just an animal" after seeing a terrestrial mammal evolve into a whale. You've just decided on some arbitrary system of classification and latched onto a category in order to deny that something "new" evolved because it still belongs to the same arbitrarily defined category. What's next, you're going to say "but it's still an enzyme" if a hydrolase evolves into a phosphatase? You can always come back after the fact and arbitrarily decide that the next level of classification is the "real" limit between "new" and "same"

And a gene can arise "de novo" by a point mutation leading to a start codon in a noncoding region of the genome - it's as simple as that.
Links to Carl Zimmer - http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/04/29/where-genes-come-from/

Let me ask Ravi, why would the Evolutionary Informatics lab where Ewert works have a section in its publications for "Christian Apologetics", if it were doing science? Seems it knows the answer before doing any "research".

As Bertrand Russell opined, "What is wanted is not the will-to-believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite."

This is ID's problem - they don't want to find anything out; they already "know" there is an agent god who does something - the problem is they have no idea what it does nor do they have the means for finding out. I think quixotic is the appropriate term.

Michael Fugate said: Let me ask Ravi, why would the Evolutionary Informatics lab where Ewert works have a section in its publications for "Christian Apologetics", if it were doing science? Seems it knows the answer before doing any "research". As Bertrand Russell opined, "What is wanted is not the will-to-believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." This is ID's problem - they don't want to find anything out; they already "know" there is an agent god who does something - the problem is they have no idea what it does nor do they have the means for finding out. I think quixotic is the appropriate term.

Doc Bill said: Ravi says: "But adaptation is not the same thing as innovation which most likely requires design." Most likely? So, you just said that adaptation "could" provide innovation since design is only "most likely" and not "definitely."Is that correct?

Second, how does artificial selection, animal breeding I suppose, differ from intelligent design? It seems to me there's no difference between breeding long legged sheep to get longer legged sheep, using only nature and sheep reproduction to do the job, than it would be for nature to produce longer legged sheep because to sheep they're more sexy. What's the difference?

Ravi said:

Doc Bill said: Ravi says: "But adaptation is not the same thing as innovation which most likely requires design." Most likely? So, you just said that adaptation "could" provide innovation since design is only "most likely" and not "definitely."Is that correct?

I am saying that adaptation is more often than not a "quick-fix" to solve an immediate problem in response to an environmental change. Innovation, on the other hand, is something which requires genuine novelty to be introduced, not just a minor adjustment or tweak.

Second, how does artificial selection, animal breeding I suppose, differ from intelligent design? It seems to me there's no difference between breeding long legged sheep to get longer legged sheep, using only nature and sheep reproduction to do the job, than it would be for nature to produce longer legged sheep because to sheep they're more sexy. What's the difference?

Yes, both natural and artificial selection can converge on the same objective. However, as we can see with certain breeds of dog which would never survive in the wild, artificial selection isn't bound my same "fitness criteria" as natural selection is.

Ravi said:

Doc Bill said: Ravi says: "But adaptation is not the same thing as innovation which most likely requires design." Most likely? So, you just said that adaptation "could" provide innovation since design is only "most likely" and not "definitely."Is that correct?

I am saying that adaptation is more often than not a "quick-fix" to solve an immediate problem in response to an environmental change. Innovation, on the other hand, is something which requires genuine novelty to be introduced, not just a minor adjustment or tweak.

Second, how does artificial selection, animal breeding I suppose, differ from intelligent design? It seems to me there's no difference between breeding long legged sheep to get longer legged sheep, using only nature and sheep reproduction to do the job, than it would be for nature to produce longer legged sheep because to sheep they're more sexy. What's the difference?

Yes, both natural and artificial selection can converge on the same objective. However, as we can see with certain breeds of dog which would never survive in the wild, artificial selection isn't bound my same "fitness criteria" as natural selection is.

Ravi said: I am saying that adaptation is more often than not a "quick-fix" to solve an immediate problem in response to an environmental change. Innovation, on the other hand, is something which requires genuine novelty to be introduced, not just a minor adjustment or tweak.

Yes, both natural and artificial selection can converge on the same objective. However, as we can see with certain breeds of dog which would never survive in the wild, artificial selection isn't bound my same "fitness criteria" as natural selection is.

Scott F said: If it is catalyzing a new reaction with a novel material that didn't exist before, performing a new function that didn't exist before, then it is a "new" enzyme that didn't exist before. From an evolutionary view point, *every* protein (enzymes are themselves proteins) is simply a pre-existing protein that has been "tinkered with" by random mutations and natural selection.

You now say that a new protein isn't "new" because two mutations aren't "big enough" to be considered "new". Yet just a few comments ago you said that it was "impossible" for a new function to develop that required two mutations, without intelligent intervention. You claimed that two mutations was one of those invisible "barriers" to evolution.

Are you now saying that "research" has demonstrated that there was intelligent intervention in the creation of this not-new enzyme? Have scientists now shown incontrovertible "proof" of an intelligent agent in the creation of nylonase? Have, perhaps, those Intelligent Design "researchers" demonstrated this?

ravi,
so? new proteins with new functions arise often (see my earlier ink) - going to comment on something relevant or just nitpick on something that doesn't matter?

LOL! This is hilarious.

Man; these poor followers of ID/creationism think they have the art of faking knowledge down pat.

They are completely unaware of the fact that their continuous display of the shibboleths of complete ignorance of science is a dead giveaway.

But, if their PhD leaders can't fake it in their socio/political hunger games of clawing their way to the top of the social heap, there is certainly no reason to think that their followers will do any better.

I still haven't figured out why they believe that their god's existence is contingent on evolution being false. Given that god belief has weathered all kinds of challenges over the millennia, why would evolution lead to its demise? Wouldn't be easier just to accept science and move on?

Michael Fugate said: ravi, so? new proteins with new functions arise often (see my earlier ink) - going to comment on something relevant or just nitpick on something that doesn't matter?

eric said: So, the fact that the immense variety of life seen on Earth is a result of replacements, rearrangements and copy/pastes of C, T, G, and A units is a pretty good indication of no "innovation" the way you're describing it, right? Its all adaptation. If genuine novelty is your proxy for design, then the fact that every single living thing shares the same DNA system and things like hox genes are conserved through loads of different organisms is a pretty clear empirical observation that phenotypic changes arise from minor adjustment overlaid on minor adjustment ad nauseum, with no novel genetic system anywhere in sight. Right? True novelty is nowhere to be found; every single organism uses a carbon backbone polymer with the same four units, just rearranged. Where is the novelty of other bases used? Where is the novelty of an alpha helix or quadruple helix?

LOL this is the second time in a couple of weeks I've heard this; the "design inferred from crappy fit" argument must be becoming popular. Evidently where we see an organism which isn't adapted to its environment very well, we are to infer Jesus, because evolution wouldn't have done such a crappy job as Jesus obviously did (or so the argument goes). Is that really the argument you want to go with? Talk about your pyrrhic victories.

Michael Fugate said: And a gene can arise "de novo" by a point mutation leading to a start codon in a noncoding region of the genome - it's as simple as that. Links to Carl Zimmer - http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/04/29/where-genes-come-from/

Ravi said:

Scott F said: If it is catalyzing a new reaction with a novel material that didn't exist before, performing a new function that didn't exist before, then it is a "new" enzyme that didn't exist before. From an evolutionary view point, *every* protein (enzymes are themselves proteins) is simply a pre-existing protein that has been "tinkered with" by random mutations and natural selection.

No. "Nylonase" simply is an esterase with enhanced hydrolytic capability, albeit with some cost too, that already could degrade oligomers associated with the production of nylon: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17512009

You now say that a new protein isn't "new" because two mutations aren't "big enough" to be considered "new". Yet just a few comments ago you said that it was "impossible" for a new function to develop that required two mutations, without intelligent intervention. You claimed that two mutations was one of those invisible "barriers" to evolution.

That's because it isn't a new function. It is merely an altered/adjusted preexisting function.

Are you now saying that "research" has demonstrated that there was intelligent intervention in the creation of this not-new enzyme? Have scientists now shown incontrovertible "proof" of an intelligent agent in the creation of nylonase? Have, perhaps, those Intelligent Design "researchers" demonstrated this?

You just don't understand biochemistry well enough to see that "nylonase" is not a new enzyme.

Ravi said: All that Darwinian evolution can do is blindly tweak and twinker the product of intelligent design and innovation. This self-adjusting capabiluty of organisms is, nonetheless, essential to their survival as environmental pressures are subject to constant change.

Natural selection does a pretty good job at keeping a population reproductively fit.

I never get a good answer when I pose the question, "What's the difference between natural selection, artificial selection and intelligent design creationism?"

ID creationists are forever touting artificial selection as an example of design, but it isn't. One is simply replacing nature with the breeder to provide selection pressure. The breeder isn't designing anything, rather, hoping for the best. Even supposedly pure bred black poodles will occasionally produce spotted pups.

ID creationism, on the other hand, requires the direct, conscious, knowing, designing, blueprinting manipulation of the gene or genes at the molecular level. How is that done? When is that done? Did the Intelligent Designer (blessed be he) sneak into Lenski's lab and mess with Strain 8 (or whichever)? How could one tell?

Take Darwin's famous orchid, for example. Did the Designer create the orchid first, then the moth with a long tongue, or was it the other way around, or was it simultaneously? Answers, please, inquiring minds want to know.

Ravi, could you give us an example of something -- some part of the natural world -- which is NOT designed?

Doc Bill said: ID creationists are forever touting artificial selection as an example of design, but it isn't. One is simply replacing nature with the breeder to provide selection pressure.

So, an intelligent designer can transfer his/her information to an organism by imposing certain conditions and making it respond to them.

we know for sure that prehistoric humans most certainly did not have intention in mind when domesticating both dogs and crops, then it is obvious that his fitness abyss does not exist.

You misunderstood me. Species can adapt, but there are natural limits to how much they can change by. Mike Behe explains this in his book, “Edge of Evolution”. It is a good read.

Michael Fugate said: I still haven't figured out why they believe that their god's existence is contingent on evolution being false. Given that god belief has weathered all kinds of challenges over the millennia, why would evolution lead to its demise? Wouldn't be easier just to accept science and move on?

harold said:

Michael Fugate said: I still haven't figured out why they believe that their god's existence is contingent on evolution being false. Given that god belief has weathered all kinds of challenges over the millennia, why would evolution lead to its demise? Wouldn't be easier just to accept science and move on?

Because, and this is important to understand, it's a social and political phenomenon. To understand them you have to understand this. Understanding this allows you to predict their behavior. Modeling them as if they were like, say, sincere believers in astrology or UFO abductions, does not. Everyone is free to send their children to private school, home school them, or tell them "In this family we don't accept what those science teachers say", and millions of law abiding if ignorant Americans do just that. But politically aggressive right authoritarian people reject those methods and demand that public schools teach the official religion of their political movement, instead of science. ID is just disguised creation science. Creation science took off in the late sixties, as part of a largely successful right wing reaction to social changes and scientific advances of the time. Creation science was intended to replace teaching of real science in public schools with narrow sectarian science denial. NOT ecumenical, koombaya, "we can still have spiritual meaning" stuff, replace it with claims that science shows that Noah's ark is a literal historical story and therefore latter day harsh authoritarian fundamentalist Protestant Christianity, and NOT other religions, is "scientifically" proven to be "true". Since creation science was about as blatantly unconstitutional as any partly successful education movement in the US, it was eventually shut down by the supreme court, although as you surely know, a much younger Antonin Scalia dissented and argued that right wing "literal Genesis" BS should be favored by the government and taught at taxpayer expense as science. Immediately after Edwards v Aguillard, the case that made officially sanctioned teaching of creation science illegal, ID was born, and the creationist textbook Of Pandas and People suddenly incorporated hilarious and well known language and typos reflecting the "change". ID is just disguised creationism. As I explained above, the presumption is that if "evolution" can be attacked, right wing science denial wins by default. The goal of ID is to push evolution denial and implications that if "evolution" is untrue then Fox News/Limbaugh/Tea Party science denial must be correct into public schools. To drive home the point, let's contrast ID with astrology. Is astrology 100% associated with one political stance? No, while ID advocates are all right wing, and 99% white male conservative Christians, none openly gay, astrology has a diverse fan base. Is astrology associated with a strong movement to replace teaching of science with teaching of astrology in public schools? No again. Do all astrology fans deny human contribution to climate change? No. Do they all oppose legal same gender marriage? No. In fact astrology doesn't even deny major scientific theories, it merely goes beyond them and makes additional claims that cannot be scientifically supported. We see quite a contrast. While belief in astrology is surely correlated with certain types of social biases, it is also a rather "sincere" and "spontaneous" superstition. People don't necessarily start with a political ax to grind and then take up astrology because it seems to rationalize and justify their unpopular political stance. On the other hand, essentially everyone who supports ID was already a right wing authoritarian tuned in to the right wing "conservative" movement before they decided that they support ID. To the best of my knowledge, there are no "converts" due to the quality of ID. (However low you or I may consider the quality of astrology, this is another contrast.) ID in the form being discussed here failed its legal and political mission at Dover. Since then, for ten years now, it has been in sharp decline. Discovery Institute/Behe/Dembski brand ID is just another outdated fashion from turn of the century. However, the underlying sentiment continues to be expressed, and leads to things like cutting funding for scientific research, cutting funding for scientific education, constant efforts to come up with new forms of science denial for public schools, pandering to science denial by all Republican candidates, even some who obviously don't share the belief privately, and so on. If someone wants to bother to understand this stuff they need to understand where it is coming from.

Doc Bill said: I never get a good answer when I pose the question, "What's the difference between natural selection, artificial selection and intelligent design creationism?"

ID creationists are forever touting artificial selection as an example of design, but it isn't. One is simply replacing nature with the breeder to provide selection pressure. The breeder isn't designing anything, rather, hoping for the best. Even supposedly pure bred black poodles will occasionally produce spotted pups.

eric said:

Doc Bill said: I never get a good answer when I pose the question, "What's the difference between natural selection, artificial selection and intelligent design creationism?"

Darwin specifically contrasted natural vs. artificial selection in OOS to make the point that nature without humans can do the same thing humans can do. He was making a teaching point rather than a philosophical point, and wasn't using 'natural' in the broad physical sense of 'anything that's possible under what we know of as scientific laws of nature.' Obviously if we use that definition, artificial selection by humans *is* natural selection. His definition is probably still pretty good as long as we don't confusingly insist that 'artificial' be contrasted with the big broad usage of 'natural', because that contrast makes no sense. Artificial is the selection humans (or other, yet-to-be-discovered sentient species) do, natural is the selection other (non-sentient) species and things in the environment do.

ID creationists are forever touting artificial selection as an example of design, but it isn't. One is simply replacing nature with the breeder to provide selection pressure. The breeder isn't designing anything, rather, hoping for the best. Even supposedly pure bred black poodles will occasionally produce spotted pups.

If you're going with 'direct genetic replacement/substitution/insertion' as a signal of design, then possibly some viruses would count as designers. Assuming you aren't hung up on requiring a designer to be sentient or have intention.

TomS said: Have the advocates of ID told us anything about what they mean by "intelligent"?

Or maybe the intelligent designer just has Alzheimer's. You know, intelligent enough to design an elephant, but can't seem to remember how she did it.

Have the advocates of ID told us anything about what they mean by “intelligent”?

harold said:

Have the advocates of ID told us anything about what they mean by “intelligent”?

Just in case there is anyone who doesn't know this reading, I'll explain why they haven't. ID is not an example of spontaneous generation. It evolved from creation science due through incremental changes, which were contingent on what was already there. Essentially, creation science encountered a challenge in the environment. It was ruled illegal to teach it in tax payer funded public school science class, due to its rather comically obvious unconstitutional nature. All parts of creation science that openly referred to the right wing Christian God actually doing miracles, or to open dating of events based on "literal interpretation of Genesis" were selected against. These elements were not replaced. Rather, in the face of environmental challenge, a camouflage strategy quickly evolved. ID consists of creation science, except where creation science would say something like "these data provide scientific evidence that God created a global flood 4000 years ago, in which everyone but Noah and his family perished"; ID uses a dissembling camouflage strategy that occasionally fools some observers. ID advocates may even make comments along that lines that the Earth "may" be more than 10,000 years old. Anyone with a brain can see that this is just disguised creation science. If I say the sky is green, Bubba says it's blue, and Buck comes along and says it might be blue or green, Buck and I are both wrong and Buck is pandering to me and/or claiming that the sky is green in a dissembling way. Asking ID to tell you who the designer is and what the designer did is like asking chameleons to stop changing color. The point of ID is to support creationist claims by "attacking" evolution, by promoting those claims in a disguised way. The "designer" is always secretly the Liberty University God, but it can't be stated out loud.

Ravi said:

Michael Fugate said: And a gene can arise "de novo" by a point mutation leading to a start codon in a noncoding region of the genome - it's as simple as that. Links to Carl Zimmer - http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/04/29/where-genes-come-from/

This is a controversial claim. The non-coding sequence was already functional and may some transcripts may code for both RNAs and proteins alike.

TomS said: Have the advocates of ID told us anything about what they mean by "intelligent"?

Michael Fugate said:

Ravi said:

Michael Fugate said: And a gene can arise "de novo" by a point mutation leading to a start codon in a noncoding region of the genome - it's as simple as that. Links to Carl Zimmer - http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/04/29/where-genes-come-from/

This is a controversial claim. The non-coding sequence was already functional and may some transcripts may code for both RNAs and proteins alike.

So everything is designed. Good to know.

Michael Fugate said:

Ravi said:

Michael Fugate said: And a gene can arise "de novo" by a point mutation leading to a start codon in a noncoding region of the genome - it's as simple as that. Links to Carl Zimmer - http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/04/29/where-genes-come-from/

This is a controversial claim. The non-coding sequence was already functional and may some transcripts may code for both RNAs and proteins alike.

So everything is designed. Good to know.

harold said: So they can't really do much of anything. They can't offer a test of whether things are designed or not that really works, of course. They can't look for evidence of who the designer is, of course.

harold said:

Michael Fugate said:

Ravi said:

Michael Fugate said: And a gene can arise "de novo" by a point mutation leading to a start codon in a noncoding region of the genome - it's as simple as that. Links to Carl Zimmer - http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/04/29/where-genes-come-from/

This is a controversial claim. The non-coding sequence was already functional and may some transcripts may code for both RNAs and proteins alike.

So everything is designed. Good to know.

And yes, this is another corner they've painted themselves into. Dissembling is tricky work. 1) They can't say the designer isn't Liberty University God because all their money comes from the tacit understanding that it is. 2) They can't say the designer is Liberty University God either, because the whole point of ID is to disguise that fact as a silly legal strategy. So they can't ever say anything positive about who the designer is, what it did, when it did it, etc. And also... 3) They can't say that anything isn't designed, because again, their funding comes from people who think that everything is designed. 4) They can't say that everything is designed, either, because their silly game is pretending to prove that some things are designed, which at least implies that some other things aren't, or are less designed, or something. So they can't really do much of anything. They can't offer a test of whether things are designed or not that really works, of course. They can't look for evidence of who the designer is, of course. All they can do is repeat silly anti-evolution arguments.

Still there, Ravi?

Ravi, could you give us an example of something – some part of the natural world – which is NOT designed?

Three days ago Nick gave Ravi a link that included several papers published on the evolution of protein folds. You know, papers published by the experts, the guys who have all of the knowledge required in order to satisfy the incredulous. in other words, exactly what Ravi demanded. Here is an example:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959440X0200338X

So, did the expert conclude that the evolution of protein folds could not occur? No he did not. In fact, he identified mechanisms by which such evolution has occurred. Imagine that.

Now Ravi has yet to read these papers, or comment on them. Not too surprising really, since the topic of this thread was the no free lunch scam perpetrated by Dembski. But after admitting that Dembski didn't know what he was talking about, Ravi just had to find some way to deflect the conversation. That he did accomplish. The ensuing tirades would make Gish himself proud. And of course along the way he succeeded in demolishing several creationist icons, conservation of information, beneficial mutations, etc.

Way to go Ravi. Are you proud of you accomplishments? And I notice that you still haven't had the guts to show up on the bathroom wall to defend your nonsense. I wonder why?

TomS said: And then there is the question about the state of things before they were designed. Were the pre-flagellum bacteria designed?

Doc Bill said:

TomS said: And then there is the question about the state of things before they were designed. Were the pre-flagellum bacteria designed?

This is jet-powered goal post moving. Even the IDiots can barely hang on. Little Stevie Meyer threw this Hail Mary during his "debate" with Charles Marshall some years ago. Marshall had deftly knocked all the wind out of Meyer's arguments for the rise of Cambrian fauna etc. Meyer finally spluttered, "Well, you haven't explained the origin of information at the beginning of life" or some such nonsense. Marshall ended by observing that there was no point in having a rational scientific discussion Meyer the IDiot. So, yeah, the hairless bacterium had to have been designed and the Designer (blessed be he!) knew the flagella motor would come later which, lo and behold, it did. It's a pathetic level of detail that Dembski didn't address either, lest it cost him another bottle of scotch.

Doc Bill said:

TomS said: And then there is the question about the state of things before they were designed. Were the pre-flagellum bacteria designed?

This is jet-powered goal post moving. Even the IDiots can barely hang on. Little Stevie Meyer threw this Hail Mary during his "debate" with Charles Marshall some years ago. Marshall had deftly knocked all the wind out of Meyer's arguments for the rise of Cambrian fauna etc. Meyer finally spluttered, "Well, you haven't explained the origin of information at the beginning of life" or some such nonsense. Marshall ended by observing that there was no point in having a rational scientific discussion Meyer the IDiot. So, yeah, the hairless bacterium had to have been designed and the Designer (blessed be he!) knew the flagella motor would come later which, lo and behold, it did. It's a pathetic level of detail that Dembski didn't address either, lest it cost him another bottle of scotch.

Michael Fugate said:

Doc Bill said:

TomS said: And then there is the question about the state of things before they were designed. Were the pre-flagellum bacteria designed?

This is jet-powered goal post moving. Even the IDiots can barely hang on. Little Stevie Meyer threw this Hail Mary during his "debate" with Charles Marshall some years ago. Marshall had deftly knocked all the wind out of Meyer's arguments for the rise of Cambrian fauna etc. Meyer finally spluttered, "Well, you haven't explained the origin of information at the beginning of life" or some such nonsense. Marshall ended by observing that there was no point in having a rational scientific discussion Meyer the IDiot. So, yeah, the hairless bacterium had to have been designed and the Designer (blessed be he!) knew the flagella motor would come later which, lo and behold, it did. It's a pathetic level of detail that Dembski didn't address either, lest it cost him another bottle of scotch.

Now I see where Ravi is coming from. When the designer made the first fruit fly, it made the fly's genome totally functional, but only turned on the genes it needed then. Over the course of time, it has occasionally turned on other genes as needed. There are still genes in the non-coding regions of the fly's genome that the designer has yet to turn on, but they're there. The designer knew perfectly well when, where, how, what and why the day the first fly was designed all the genes stand all of its descendants would ever need. The designer is a mighty, might designer.

TomS said:

Michael Fugate said:

Doc Bill said:

TomS said: And then there is the question about the state of things before they were designed. Were the pre-flagellum bacteria designed?

This is jet-powered goal post moving. Even the IDiots can barely hang on. Little Stevie Meyer threw this Hail Mary during his "debate" with Charles Marshall some years ago. Marshall had deftly knocked all the wind out of Meyer's arguments for the rise of Cambrian fauna etc. Meyer finally spluttered, "Well, you haven't explained the origin of information at the beginning of life" or some such nonsense. Marshall ended by observing that there was no point in having a rational scientific discussion Meyer the IDiot. So, yeah, the hairless bacterium had to have been designed and the Designer (blessed be he!) knew the flagella motor would come later which, lo and behold, it did. It's a pathetic level of detail that Dembski didn't address either, lest it cost him another bottle of scotch.

Now I see where Ravi is coming from. When the designer made the first fruit fly, it made the fly's genome totally functional, but only turned on the genes it needed then. Over the course of time, it has occasionally turned on other genes as needed. There are still genes in the non-coding regions of the fly's genome that the designer has yet to turn on, but they're there. The designer knew perfectly well when, where, how, what and why the day the first fly was designed all the genes stand all of its descendants would ever need. The designer is a mighty, might designer.

How did the change of the world come about which called for a change in the bacteria? It begins to sound like the designer designed a changing world. Just how was the potential for producing flagella built into the original complement of DNA? One way would be to put the sequence of genes present in the full form but inactivated. But that is subject to disruption when it is not being used. It would not be beyond the capability of the designer to allow some other way for the genes to appear. How can we rule out that the designer designed life with evolution built in?

So, if we stipulate a designer, it has to be an agency that has perfect knowledge of all interactions of everything in the Universe throughout all time and all space. Nothing else could possibly possess the infinite foresight required.

Umm. I can't think what that might be.

Nick Matzke,

Nonsense. The active information is in excess reproduction (repeated queries).

Excess reproduction drives the variation, which is then optimized by natural selection.

Hence, variation and selection cannot account for excess reproduction. That would be putting the cart before the horse.

So no, non-teleological step-wise change (NTSWC) cannot and does not create new information. It only optimizes (rearranges) what has already been produced.

Design uses the frequency and quantity of excess reproduction to provide enough variation, which natural selection can optimize. This allows for organisms to withstand any change in the environment without having any foresight, since the foresight is in the design of the system.

DEM are right, and English/Felsenstein/and now Matzke are wrong.

Game, set, match for DEM.

Dave Luckett said: So, if we stipulate a designer, it has to be an agency that has perfect knowledge of all interactions of everything in the Universe throughout all time and all space. Nothing else could possibly possess the infinite foresight required. Umm. I can't think what that might be.

Steve said: Excess reproduction.

Steve said: Nick Matzke, Nonsense. The active information is in excess reproduction (repeated queries). Excess reproduction drives the variation, which is then optimized by natural selection. Hence, variation and selection cannot account for excess reproduction. That would be putting the cart before the horse. So no, non-teleological step-wise change (NTSWC) cannot and does not create new information. It only optimizes (rearranges) what has already been produced. Design uses the frequency and quantity of excess reproduction to provide enough variation, which natural selection can optimize. This allows for organisms to withstand any change in the environment without having any foresight, since the foresight is in the design of the system. DEM are right, and English/Felsenstein/and now Matzke are wrong. Game, set, match for DEM.

Mike Elzinga said:

Steve said: Nick Matzke, Nonsense. The active information is in excess reproduction (repeated queries). Excess reproduction drives the variation, which is then optimized by natural selection. Hence, variation and selection cannot account for excess reproduction. That would be putting the cart before the horse. So no, non-teleological step-wise change (NTSWC) cannot and does not create new information. It only optimizes (rearranges) what has already been produced. Design uses the frequency and quantity of excess reproduction to provide enough variation, which natural selection can optimize. This allows for organisms to withstand any change in the environment without having any foresight, since the foresight is in the design of the system. DEM are right, and English/Felsenstein/and now Matzke are wrong. Game, set, match for DEM.

According to a Dembski, Ewert, and Marks calculation, the "information" in 64 grams of copper is - log₂118^{6x10^23}. Can you do their math for them? There is twice as much information in 128 grams of copper. Not only can copper nuggets of mass 64 grams not exist in the lifetime of the universe, they can't increase in information either. Maybe you can explain why DE&M didn't win the 2013 Nobel Prize in chemistry for their mathematical calculations of the probabilities of molecular assemblies. Shouldn't that be a major slight for you ID/creationists? I also recall that you ran away from a little concept test about entropy quite a while back. Have you made any progress on that test yet? You seem to "know" so much about everything that I would think it would have been a piece of cake for you.

Mike Elzinga said:

Steve said: Nick Matzke, Nonsense. The active information is in excess reproduction (repeated queries). Excess reproduction drives the variation, which is then optimized by natural selection. Hence, variation and selection cannot account for excess reproduction. That would be putting the cart before the horse. So no, non-teleological step-wise change (NTSWC) cannot and does not create new information. It only optimizes (rearranges) what has already been produced. Design uses the frequency and quantity of excess reproduction to provide enough variation, which natural selection can optimize. This allows for organisms to withstand any change in the environment without having any foresight, since the foresight is in the design of the system. DEM are right, and English/Felsenstein/and now Matzke are wrong. Game, set, match for DEM.

According to a Dembski, Ewert, and Marks calculation, the "information" in 64 grams of copper is - log₂118^{6x10^23}. Can you do their math for them? There is twice as much information in 128 grams of copper. Not only can copper nuggets of mass 64 grams not exist in the lifetime of the universe, they can't increase in information either. Maybe you can explain why DE&M didn't win the 2013 Nobel Prize in chemistry for their mathematical calculations of the probabilities of molecular assemblies. Shouldn't that be a major slight for you ID/creationists? I also recall that you ran away from a little concept test about entropy quite a while back. Have you made any progress on that test yet? You seem to "know" so much about everything that I would think it would have been a piece of cake for you.

Steve said:

Dave Luckett said: So, if we stipulate a designer, it has to be an agency that has perfect knowledge of all interactions of everything in the Universe throughout all time and all space. Nothing else could possibly possess the infinite foresight required. Umm. I can't think what that might be.

The designer's foresight is in understanding what is required of organisms to survive within a changing biosphere. Excess reproduction creating variaton optimized by natural selection provides the perfect solution that does not require each individual organism to itself possess foresight. They throw out numerous offspring, guaranteeing at least one survives, no matter what the changes in the environment present. The offspring that do not survive are early participants in the food chain, meaning organisms pay their rent in advance. The neighbors are happy, they are happy and life persists. NTSWC cannot account for these integrated, interactive systems that we call the biosphere. Design can, precisely because design is teleological and uses foresight to build a system. The better the foresight, the better the system.

Steve said: The active information is in excess reproduction (repeated queries). Excess reproduction drives the variation, which is then optimized by natural selection. Hence, variation and selection cannot account for excess reproduction. That would be putting the cart before the horse.

So no, non-teleological step-wise change (NTSWC) cannot and does not create new information. It only optimizes (rearranges) what has already been produced.

Steve said: They throw out numerous offspring, guaranteeing at least one survives, no matter what the changes in the environment present.

The creationist overlords at ID Central must have noticed Ravi was floundering so they benched him in favor of Steve. Steve, in typical fashion, throws out new undefined terms to deflect criticism. So Steve can you operationally define "active information" and "excess reproduction"? Doesn't fitness depend on both survival and reproduction and doesn't this mean Steve doesn't have a clue?

Michael Fugate said: Of course there can be corruption - the FALL happened - so even though the designer made the first fly perfect and able to adapt to any and all future environmental changes (the designer knew organisms would alter the environment just by being alive)

gnome de net said: So your proposed designer lacks perfect knowledge and foresight?

Steve said: design is teleological and uses foresight to build a system.

Doc Bill said:

Steve said: design is teleological and uses foresight to build a system.

How do you know that design is teleological? What exactly does that mean? A real example from biology would be nice. You have that, right?

Steve said: Dave Luckett, The designer's foresight is in understanding what is required of organisms to survive within a changing biosphere. Excess reproduction creating variaton optimized by natural selection provides the perfect solution that does not require each individual organism to itself possess foresight. They throw out numerous offspring, guaranteeing at least one survives, no matter what the changes in the environment present. The offspring that do not survive are early participants in the food chain, meaning organisms pay their rent in advance. The neighbors are happy, they are happy and life persists. NTSWC cannot account for these integrated, interactive systems that we call the biosphere. Design can, precisely because design is teleological and uses foresight to build a system. The better the foresight, the better the system.

Dave Luckett said: So, if we stipulate a designer, it has to be an agency that has perfect knowledge of all interactions of everything in the Universe throughout all time and all space. Nothing else could possibly possess the infinite foresight required. Umm. I can't think what that might be.

TomS said: Has it been determined that information is an extensive property? How much information is there is one atom of copper? In one neutron in a copper nucleus? A quark?

Just Bob said: Ravi, could you give us an example of something – some part of the natural world – which is NOT designed?

Mike Elzinga said:

TomS said: Has it been determined that information is an extensive property? How much information is there is one atom of copper? In one neutron in a copper nucleus? A quark?

If you use Dembski's type of calculation, yes. log₂118^{6x10^23} = (6x10²³) x log₂118. Twice as many moles, twice the "information." This is one of the major reasons that D/creationist calculations make no sense whatsoever- besides the fact that they have absolutely nothing to do with the properties and behaviors of atoms and molecules; or even other things that interact among themselves.

Just Bob said:

Steve said: They throw out numerous offspring, guaranteeing at least one survives, no matter what the changes in the environment present.

"Survives to reproduce" I assume you mean; otherwise what's the point? But -- really now -- I'd like you to name any creature on Earth that can guarantee that even one of its offspring will survive, "no matter what the changes in the environment."

TomS said:

Mike Elzinga said:

TomS said: Has it been determined that information is an extensive property? How much information is there is one atom of copper? In one neutron in a copper nucleus? A quark?

If you use Dembski's type of calculation, yes. log₂118^{6x10^23} = (6x10²³) x log₂118. Twice as many moles, twice the "information." This is one of the major reasons that D/creationist calculations make no sense whatsoever- besides the fact that they have absolutely nothing to do with the properties and behaviors of atoms and molecules; or even other things that interact among themselves.

So, when a bacterium divides, it is doubling the amount of information. Presumably by purely naturalistic, physical, materialistic means. When a plant or animal grows, it is increasing the amount of information. When a crystal grows.

If Im not mistaken Mike, this OP is responding to DEM’s assertion that non-teleological step-wise change (NTSWC) cannot create new information, only optimize it. Find an OP on entropy and we can talk there. Also, in the context of this OP, information is not being calculated. The issue is with the probability that NTSWC creates new information. DEM show that it does not, which is a no-brainer since we (both sides of the aisle) agree natural selection is an optimizer, thus implying that it works on something that already exists, not something that it is in the process of making. Again, variation and selection only happen because there is enough frequency and quantity of offspring to work off of. Variation and selection are components of a designed system that is driven by excess reproduction, not the other way around.

...none of these poor guys has any clue about what “information” is...

SETI seeks to discover intelligence in electromagnetic signals from outer space. Their criterion to judge their success is human-invented electromagnetic signals, in both physics and statistics.

Historically creationists, like Paley, have sought to discover intelligence in Nature (like a watch laying out on the heath). Their criterion to judge their success was "Is it complicated, like a human-invented watch?" (Aha! A watch laying out on the heath. Is it complicated, like a human-invented watch? Yes? Then it must be designed, and if it wasn't designed by a human, it must have been designed by the Great Designer.)

Modern-day creationists seek to discover intelligence in Nature. Their criterion to judge their success is, "Is it complicated, so complicated I can't imagine how anyone could design it. Since we mere humans can barely understand it, it must have been designed by the Great Designer. Case closed."

And you know who the Great Designer is.

We are still in the Stone Age.

In fairness, Paley did go a little further than mere complication. He also observed that a watch is made to perform a specific function, which it achieves by the purposeful arrangement of parts. He attempted to argue that living things also demonstrate such a purposeful arrangement of parts, hence that design may be inferred.

The argument breaks down when one makes these further observations of living things: that their purpose, if you can call it that, is simply to survive and to successfully reproduce, BUT they do not invariably perform that function, AND that their unique property is reproduction with variation. The rest of evolution follows from that simple understanding.

Looks like IDiot Steve and IDiot Levi hit the road because - D'oh!

They've negotiated the obstacles of the PT proving ground and are now ready to go out in the world to convert the heathen hordes.

Michael Fugate said: The creationist overlords at ID Central must have noticed Ravi was floundering so they benched him in favor of Steve. Steve, in typical fashion, throws out new undefined terms to deflect criticism. So Steve can you operationally define "active information" and "excess reproduction"? Doesn't fitness depend on both survival and reproduction and doesn't this mean Steve doesn't have a clue?

gnome de net said:

Steve said:

Dave Luckett said: So, if we stipulate a designer, it has to be an agency that has perfect knowledge of all interactions of everything in the Universe throughout all time and all space. Nothing else could possibly possess the infinite foresight required. Umm. I can't think what that might be.

The designer's foresight is in understanding what is required of organisms to survive within a changing biosphere. Excess reproduction creating variaton optimized by natural selection provides the perfect solution that does not require each individual organism to itself possess foresight. They throw out numerous offspring, guaranteeing at least one survives, no matter what the changes in the environment present. The offspring that do not survive are early participants in the food chain, meaning organisms pay their rent in advance. The neighbors are happy, they are happy and life persists. NTSWC cannot account for these integrated, interactive systems that we call the biosphere. Design can, precisely because design is teleological and uses foresight to build a system. The better the foresight, the better the system.

So your proposed designer lacks perfect knowledge and foresight?

Steve said: Bullshit.

Steve said: More bullshit.

Just Bob said:

Steve said: They throw out numerous offspring, guaranteeing at least one survives, no matter what the changes in the environment present.

"Survives to reproduce" I assume you mean; otherwise what's the point? But -- really now -- I'd like you to name any creature on Earth that can guarantee that even one of its offspring will survive, "no matter what the changes in the environment."

Steve said: Fitness is too often mischaracterized as a struggle.

Well of course it is all bullshit to you Yardbird.

It would rock your world if it was any different than a messy kluge of a struggle to exist.

If life were in fact as you say, it would have vaporized long ago. It is the design that makes it all work.

NTSWC only works when it co-opts design but dare not speak its name.

Whatever works for you. Im good with it.

Hey, Mike

Love that tidbit sound bite.

It kicks ass.

The creationistists are shakin' in their boots.

Steve said: If life were in fact as you say, it would have vaporized long ago. It is the design that makes it all work. NTSWC only works when it co-opts design but dare not speak its name

Steve said: It would rock your world if it was any different than a messy kluge of a struggle to exist.

Excess reproduction IMO is circumstantial and inferential evidence of a designed object since it is multifunctional. It not only guarantees a reproduction continuum, it also contributes to the stability of the food chain (and consequently the biosphere) by supplying the offspring that didnt reproduce to the food kitty.

If early organisms were not already embedded with excess reproductive ability, then evolution could not get off the ground. How would a single offspring provide enough variation for selection to optimize?

Steve said: Active information is not a new undefined term. It is defined as repeated queries.

Excess reproduction IMO is circumstantial and inferential evidence of a designed object since it is multifunctional.

Stevie boy is just making shit up as usual. And as usual, provides absolutely no evidence at all for anything. Take this little gem for example:

"No, actually who/whatever designed the evolutionary cycle had perfect foresight. As I mentioned, the foresight is in the design. Only excess reproduction can drive variation and selection."

Really? So a population of a million breeding pairs, only producing one offspring per pair, thus reducing the population size by half every generation, could not possibly generate any genetic variation and so could not undergo natural selection. Really? Why on earth not? This is just poor logic combined with ignorance in a desperate attempt at obfuscation. This guy will say anything to try to deny real science, no matter how ridiculous.

And perfect foresight? Really? So no population ever have massive die offs? No species has ever gone extinct? Really? Wasn't such good foresight with the trilobites or the dinosaurs now was it? Seems like the perfect foresight didn't work so well there did it? Sure, just ignore all the evidence, make up bullshit that is completely meaningless and presto, instant science denial.

Since Stevie is not discussing the topic of the thread, time for another dump to the bathroom wall.

Steve said: Obviously. The difference is that the evolutionary narrative see the unsurviving offspring as a kluge, a waste, a poor design.

As an example, varieties of insects come and go but Insects persist. In fact, it is precisely because varieties of insects come and go that Insects can stay in the game.

Well you know Steve is a carpet salesman. He obviously never studied any real biology. To fill this yawning chasm in his knowledge, he constructs elaborate scenarios about the ridiculous things that biologists supposedly believe. Then he spends his time denigrating his own misconceptions and congratulating himself for how superior he is to all of the foolish scientists who supposedly believe the things he made up. It really must stroke his ego to be so superior to all the real experts. It must also be quite a shock for him to come here and receive nothing but ridicule.

DS said: And perfect foresight? Really? So no population ever have massive die offs? No species has ever gone extinct? Really? Wasn't such good foresight with the trilobites or the dinosaurs now was it? Seems like the perfect foresight didn't work so well there did it?

DS said: To fill this yawning chasm in his knowledge, he constructs elaborate scenarios about the ridiculous things that biologists supposedly believe.

Steve said: Well of course it is all bullshit to you Yardbird. It would rock your world if it was any different than a messy kluge of a struggle to exist. If life were in fact as you say, it would have vaporized long ago. It is the design that makes it all work. NTSWC only works when it co-opts design but dare not speak its name. Whatever works for you. Im good with it.

eric said:

DS said: To fill this yawning chasm in his knowledge, he constructs elaborate scenarios about the ridiculous things that biologists supposedly believe.

Ah, but he's somewhat unusual in getting the ID piece wrong too. So in this case he's set up a straw man vs. straw man joust. May the best scarecrow win!

eric said:

Steve said: As an example, varieties of insects come and go but Insects persist. In fact, it is precisely because varieties of insects come and go that Insects can stay in the game.

Taxonomically, 'insect' is a class. Are you claiming that under ID, taxonomic classes never go extinct? That is at least an empirically testable claim of the hypothesis.

John Harshman said: He does seem to be making that claim. Somebody tell the trilobites. Oh, wait. We can't.

DS said:

John Harshman said: He does seem to be making that claim. Somebody tell the trilobites. Oh, wait. We can't.

Or the dinosaurs. Unless of course he is willing to stipulate that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Now why do I think that that is unlikely?

I'm having trouble understanding how Steve's version of ID differs from natural selection, except by calling all natural selection's mechanisms, and natural selection itself, "designed."

Firesign Theatre on evolution

Animals without backbones hid from each other or fell down. Clamasaurs and Oysterettes appeared as appetizers. Then came the sponges which sucked up about ten percent of all life. Hundreds of years later, in the Late Devouring Period, fish became obnoxious. Trailerbites, chiggerbites, and mosquitoes collided aimlessly in the dense gas. Finally, tiny edible plants sprang up in rows giving birth to generations of insecticides and other small dying creatures.

There's a humorous look at taxonomy in the linked article. It's a little too long to relate.

DS said:

John Harshman said: He does seem to be making that claim. Somebody tell the trilobites. Oh, wait. We can't.

Or the dinosaurs. Unless of course he is willing to stipulate that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Now why do I think that that is unlikely?

Man, with just a little foresight, you could have warned all of the dinosaurs to hide somewhere safe the day the meteor hit. Or maybe, with a little more foresight, you could have altered the orbit to prevent it from hitting the earth. So, either no foresight, or a real hatred of dinosaurs. What, did they eat the magic apple to?

John Harshman said:

eric said:

Steve said: As an example, varieties of insects come and go but Insects persist. In fact, it is precisely because varieties of insects come and go that Insects can stay in the game.

Taxonomically, 'insect' is a class. Are you claiming that under ID, taxonomic classes never go extinct? That is at least an empirically testable claim of the hypothesis.

He does seem to be making that claim. Somebody tell the trilobites. Oh, wait. We can't.

Mike Elzinga said:

John Harshman said:

eric said:

Steve said: As an example, varieties of insects come and go but Insects persist. In fact, it is precisely because varieties of insects come and go that Insects can stay in the game.

Taxonomically, 'insect' is a class. Are you claiming that under ID, taxonomic classes never go extinct? That is at least an empirically testable claim of the hypothesis.

He does seem to be making that claim. Somebody tell the trilobites. Oh, wait. We can't.

Or maybe we should start thinking of DNA as a "class?"

Steve is claiming a key premise - that more offspring are produced than survive to reproduce - of Darwin's evolution by natural selection is wrong. Darwin who was a careful observer of nature blew this? Really, Steve? Anyone who has spent any time observing would know this premise not wrong. Ever seen an oak tree with acorns, Steve? Ever cut open a fish before spawning? Ever ejaculated? 180 million pieces of active information to fertilize one egg? An egg that if fertilized only has a slim chance of implanting? And you claim this for intelligent design?

Then on to ID analogy for intelligent design - human design. Have you ever designed anything, Steve? Did it happen like magic? or did you plan it out measuring and remeasuring, imagining how it would look or work and then reimagining, building a prototype and then another, going back to the plan and reimagining? Excess production all the way down. Then there are the finished designs - we use homeostatic mechanisms to keep things working - excess and deficit, excess and deficit - not constants. Please try to study some before coming back.

John Harshman said: As long as the beetles are safe, god doesn't care.

Tom English said:

John Harshman said: As long as the beetles are safe, god doesn't care.

As long as Ewert can turn a bug into a beetle, god is safe. (It was Joe who first noticed the photo. It was I who first noticed that Ewert had changed our model -- from a GUC Bug to a GUC Beetle, I suppose.)

Michael Fugate said: Steve is claiming a key premise - that more offspring are produced than survive to reproduce - of Darwin's evolution by natural selection is wrong.

John Harshman said:

Michael Fugate said: Steve is claiming a key premise - that more offspring are produced than survive to reproduce - of Darwin's evolution by natural selection is wrong.

No, I don't think he is. What he's claiming is that excess reproduction exists and is evidence of design, because it would have to be designed in and could never occur naturally.

So when theists say "everything happens for a reason", they really mean it. So if I were out camping with my family and my young son wandered off and was eaten by a mountain lion, then he was just "excess reproduction"? Steve's god destined him for mountain lion food before he was conceived? This god doesn't leave anything to chance.

CJColucci said: I'm having trouble understanding how Steve's version of ID differs from natural selection, except by calling all natural selection's mechanisms, and natural selection itself, "designed."

Dave Luckett said: In fairness, Paley did go a little further than mere complication. He also observed that a watch is made to perform a specific function, which it achieves by the purposeful arrangement of parts. He attempted to argue that living things also demonstrate such a purposeful arrangement of parts, hence that design may be inferred. The argument breaks down when one makes these further observations of living things: that their purpose, if you can call it that, is simply to survive and to successfully reproduce, BUT they do not invariably perform that function, AND that their unique property is reproduction with variation. The rest of evolution follows from that simple understanding.

Steve, are you capable of naming something which is NOT designed?

You want something that wasn't designed?

How about "cdesign proponentsists".

Henry J said: You want something that wasn't designed? How about "cdesign proponentsists".

The complexity of life is mindboggling.

The inherent instability of DNA making it susceptible to so many errors an faults. It needs a continuous maintenance operation of a complexity far beyond anything imaginable, but it has been revealesd as a fact of life. It makes no sense that a superinteligent designer (not to mention his mindblowing R&D and implementation facilites) with unlimited resources to create a universe in his image, i.e. perfection, did not create that universe and show off his superior design
capability. Instead what we see is kludge uopon kludge all the way both up and down. Just what we should expect from our mother nature.

ID isn't even a kludge, it is a brainfart if I may say so.
With that in mind, no further debate required.

Besides, ID is boring, boring, boring. Goddidit, and then what? Prayer an hallelujahs from sunrise to sundown?

Rolf said: Goddidit, and then what?

Yeah, if everything was designed, why doesn't our yellow dwarf have waste disposal and refueling mechanisms?

And if EVERYTHING is designed -- sometimes the fallback position of an IDiot who realizes he can't say how to detect design -- it is still a useless concept: it doesn't distinguish anything from anything else. We're doing pretty well with physics and chemistry and biology without assuming everything is IDed... what would we gain by assuming everything was?

Even imaginary things are designed. Being imaginary means that they are the products of design. From unfinished creative work to impossible objects.

Design doesn't even distinguish reality from imagination.

So the square root of -1 was "designed"? :D

Henry J said: So the square root of -1 was "designed"? :D

Just Bob said: My point exactly. Even if ID were accepted as true, what can you DO with it? For instance, what great scientific advances have come from ID labs?

@stevaroni there is one major step before what you mention.

If ID were correct in all that it offers, what they would have gained is that there is a fatal flaw in the scientific account depending on evolution.

Even if that were found out to be the case, that would not provide us with an alternative. It would not tell us what does happen, when or where it happens, how or why it happens, or even anything about who the intelligent designers might be. The designers might, for all that we can imagine, have been directing evolution to operate, producing new species by common descent over billions of years, etc. etc. etc.

Even if there have to be intelligent designers behind it all, they might include "the God of Christianity; an angel--fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers". They might not have had any function since, for example, the Cambrian. Maybe all of naturalistic, materialistic, scientific, goal-less evolution has it 100% correct for the last hundreds of millions of years.

Mike Elzinga said:

Henry J said: So the square root of -1 was "designed"? :D

It's really complex; so it has to be.

Intelligent Design and the square root of -1 are both imaginary.

John Harshman said: The square root of -1 isn't complex. But the square root of -1 + 1 is.

Joe Felsenstein said:

John Harshman said: The square root of -1 isn't complex. But the square root of -1 + 1 is.

PEMDAS, Joe. No. -1 + 1 = 0, and the square root of 0 is 0. (But if you put in a couple of parentheses in the right place, John would be right.)

TomS said: @stevaroni there is one major step before what you mention. If ID were correct in all that it offers, what they would have gained is that there is a fatal flaw in the scientific account depending on evolution. Even if that were found out to be the case, that would not provide us with an alternative. It would not tell us what does happen, when or where it happens, how or why it happens, or even anything about who the intelligent designers might be. The designers might, for all that we can imagine, have been directing evolution to operate, producing new species by common descent over billions of years, etc. etc. etc. Even if there have to be intelligent designers behind it all, they might include "the God of Christianity; an angel--fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers". They might not have had any function since, for example, the Cambrian. Maybe all of naturalistic, materialistic, scientific, goal-less evolution has it 100% correct for the last hundreds of millions of years.

Or you could have written "1 plus the square root of -1" with no need to invoke PEMDAS.

Parenthetically speaking.

I do have a minor disagreement with harold.
I don't think that Young Earth Creationism is the base position. They are surely the loudest, but I think that many of the ID advocates realize that it is ridiculous. One of the reasons that they are taking the "don't ask, don't tell" position is that they would alienate their political base by openly admitting that there is no way to back things like baraminology and Noah's Ark and the vapor canopy. Indeed, "traditional" creationism had rejected YEC before the 1960s.

And it is worth pointing out that anti-evolution has always had a problem which they have addressed by making a point of silence - as ID is to YEC, so "traditional" creationism is to Omphalism. No variety of creationism has ever told us what happens, why and how - with the possible suggestion that it all suddenly appeared with all of the appearance of having a evolutionary history.

Even before the publication of On the Origin of Species, it was pointed out that creationists did not offer an alternative account to an evolutionary one. Herbert Spencer wrote about that in an 1852 essay, "The Development Hypothesis" (see it in Wikisource.org).

TomS said: I do have a minor disagreement with harold. I don't think that Young Earth Creationism is the base position. They are surely the loudest, but I think that many of the ID advocates realize that it is ridiculous. One of the reasons that they are taking the "don't ask, don't tell" position is that they would alienate their political base by openly admitting that there is no way to back things like baraminology and Noah's Ark and the vapor canopy. Indeed, "traditional" creationism had rejected YEC before the 1960s. And it is worth pointing out that anti-evolution has always had a problem which they have addressed by making a point of silence - as ID is to YEC, so "traditional" creationism is to Omphalism. No variety of creationism has ever told us what happens, why and how - with the possible suggestion that it all suddenly appeared with all of the appearance of having a evolutionary history. Even before the publication of On the Origin of Species, it was pointed out that creationists did not offer an alternative account to an evolutionary one. Herbert Spencer wrote about that in an 1852 essay, "The Development Hypothesis" (see it in Wikisource.org).

Doc Bill said:

TomS said: I do have a minor disagreement with harold. I don't think that Young Earth Creationism is the base position. They are surely the loudest, but I think that many of the ID advocates realize that it is ridiculous. One of the reasons that they are taking the "don't ask, don't tell" position is that they would alienate their political base by openly admitting that there is no way to back things like baraminology and Noah's Ark and the vapor canopy. Indeed, "traditional" creationism had rejected YEC before the 1960s. And it is worth pointing out that anti-evolution has always had a problem which they have addressed by making a point of silence - as ID is to YEC, so "traditional" creationism is to Omphalism. No variety of creationism has ever told us what happens, why and how - with the possible suggestion that it all suddenly appeared with all of the appearance of having a evolutionary history. Even before the publication of On the Origin of Species, it was pointed out that creationists did not offer an alternative account to an evolutionary one. Herbert Spencer wrote about that in an 1852 essay, "The Development Hypothesis" (see it in Wikisource.org).

Just for fun, you can look up through Google the transcripts of the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt of 2005 where a number of creationists were brought in to testify. Look up Stephen Meyer's testimony; he dialed-in to the proceedings. Legal Beagle Pedro Irigonegaray graciously provided representation for Sanity and simply asked each witness the same set of questions. One question was: What is the age of the Earth? Such a simple question. You could get away with 4.5 billion years and move on. But not Meyer. Oh, no! He dances around for page after page of transcript. He really, really, really didn't want to go on record with a question this simple. To me, that exchange typified the abject dishonesty of the Dishonesty Tute.

Michael Fugate said: Not to mention his dancing around common descent. You can see his little brain spinning even on paper - do I want to look like a loon to every scientist in the world and deny common descent or do I jettison credibility with my base who are themselves a bunch of loons? Do you want maple syrup or blueberry on that waffle?

John Harshman said:

Michael Fugate said: Steve is claiming a key premise - that more offspring are produced than survive to reproduce - of Darwin's evolution by natural selection is wrong.

No, I don't think he is. What he's claiming is that excess reproduction exists and is evidence of design, because it would have to be designed in and could never occur naturally.

eric said:

John Harshman said:

Michael Fugate said: Steve is claiming a key premise - that more offspring are produced than survive to reproduce - of Darwin's evolution by natural selection is wrong.

No, I don't think he is. What he's claiming is that excess reproduction exists and is evidence of design, because it would have to be designed in and could never occur naturally.

Very innumerately, he's claiming "excess reproduction" includes >1 offspring/parent, which is not even the replacement rate.

Nick Matzke: GAME OVER, MAN. GAME OVER! The whole point of Dembski et al. invoking “No Free Lunch” theorems was to argue that, if evolutionary searches worked, it meant the fitness function must be designed, because (logical jump herein) the No Free Lunch theorems showed that evolutionary searches worked no better than chance, when averaged over all possible fitness landscapes.

Ray Martinez said: Since the same presupposes design and evolution not mutually exclusive, when in fact they are...

Yardbird said:

Ray Martinez said: Since the same presupposes design and evolution not mutually exclusive, when in fact they are...

How do you know that?

Ray Martinez said:

Yardbird said:

Ray Martinez said: Since the same presupposes design and evolution not mutually exclusive, when in fact they are...

How do you know that?

Two Reasons 1. Design, as an effect, presupposes Intelligent agency ...

Design observed infers implies the work of Intelligence.

...evolution, as an effect, presupposes unintelligent agencies.

Say, this Dembski guy you mention, didn't he leave the ID movement?

Ray Martinez said: 2. No evolutionary scientist, since Darwin, accepts both concepts existing in nature at the same time because these persons understand the logic of reason #1 as conveying mutual exclusivity. Existence of one precludes existence of its antonym and falsifies existence of its antonym.

eric said:

Steve said: Active information is not a new undefined term. It is defined as repeated queries.

No, you're still mischaracterizing the ID position. AI is information that is either front-loaded into the search algorithm (i.e., by the designer), or supplied by an outside source (i.e., the designer or some other outside source). 'Repeated queries' could be a source of external information and thus AI, but it is certainly not the only source and it is certainly not the definition of AI.

Excess reproduction IMO is circumstantial and inferential evidence of a designed object since it is multifunctional.

Again, the way chemistry works the notion of repeated reactions is more the rule than the exception. There is nothing particularly remarkable or miraculous about the same molecule or biological structure performing the same reaction more than once. Moreover by your definition of 'excess', its actually required for sexual reproducing life, not some sort of optional benefit. Because each reproduction requires two parents, the replacement rate has to be 2 kids/parent, not 1 kid/parent (and this is excluding expectations of premature death). If every sexually reproducing animal had exactly 1 kid, the population of every species would decline by half every generation. IOW, put simply, you're not even getting your basic math right. The rest of your post, I have to admit, I didn't really understand. Sounded like gobbledygook to me.

John Harshman said:

Michael Fugate said: Steve is claiming a key premise - that more offspring are produced than survive to reproduce - of Darwin's evolution by natural selection is wrong.

No, I don't think he is. What he's claiming is that excess reproduction exists and is evidence of design, because it would have to be designed in and could never occur naturally.

Do you not see the problem there? You concede that excess reproduction is essential for Darwinian Evolution but then claim it is also proof of design. How does that contribute to human understanding of whether evolution is by design or unintelligent processes, or through struggle or co-operation? How do you decide between the two possibilities?

Steve said: If i was a scientist...

Steve said: Let's take that first multi-cellular organism for a start. It has maximum fitness by virtue of its very existence.

This logically implies it has the correct set of components and cellular processess to stay alive.

Next we assume (from a non-teleological, step-wise change POV) this first multi-cellular organism was capable of only a single replication.

Using the popular non-teleological step-wise change evolutionary meme again, what would be the effect of a single, random variation in any one of the components/chemical processes of this obviously extraordinarily successful configuation of matter? How was it logically possible for this organism to survive even one single variation without pre-existing machinery (information)?

Steve said: Repetitive chemical reactions and reproduction are different animals. They are more like different universes. What an extraordiary logical stretch to assume that the repetitive nature of a chemical reaction is supporting evidence for the the coordinated, timed execution of a myriad set of chemical reactions which is reproduction. It seems your misunderstanding is due to your consideration of what is now, and not the contemplation of how they got where they are.

Steve! You're back!

Maybe you've had time to think of just one little example of something which is NOT designed. If you can't think of one, just say so.

Hey, Steve, if you'd post your response below/after the comment you're responding to, your response would be easier to interpret.

Steve said: Non-teleological evolutionary memes get us nowhere. In fact, they are science stoppers. These memes tell us to not look here (teleology), don't look there (design). Just look my way (non-teleological step-wise change).

Steve said: This is precisely what I am claiming.

Let's take that first multi-cellular organism for a start. It has maximum fitness by virtue of its very existence. This logically implies it has the correct set of components and cellular processess to stay alive.

Next we assume (from a non-teleological, step-wise change POV) this first multi-cellular organism was capable of only a single replication.

Also, in this original multi-cellular configuration the cell would not have had the sophisticated DNA error detection and repair capabilities (design assumes the opposite for the obvious logical reasons) to eliminate deleterous mutations.

Using the popular non-teleological step-wise change evolutionary meme again, what would be the effect of a single, random variation in any one of the components/chemical processes of this obviously extraordinarily successful configuation of matter?

Further, assuming the super successful organism was able to repeatedly defy the odds and hang on despite repeated challenges from variations that would steer the organism away from its current maximum fitness, what would trigger these variations that are void of selection (since there is only one offspring, and nothing to select for) to 'improve' an organism already at maximum fitness?

How was it logically possible for this organism to survive even one single variation without pre-existing machinery (information)? This is what I ask Harshman, Elsberry, Matzke, et al Oh, and for DS' benefit, this goes directly to the heart of the OP. Are non-teleological processes capable of creating information? So John Harshman (or Nick Matzke, Wesley Elsberry, et al for that matter), where's the free lunch coming from? How did variation in that single, maximumly fit multi-cellular organism create something new and improved?

Steve said: This contributes to our knowlege by starting inquiry from a productive basis. HOW was life designed? WHAT tools were used to create the design? WHY were these tools chosen? WHERE are these tools? HOW do they work? WHAT are the fundament elements of the design? HOW many elements are there? Were all the elements introduced at the same time? If not, WHEN were each element introduced? WHAT order were each element introduced? WHY were they introduced in this particular order?

For with what eyes of the mind was your Plato able to see that workhouse of such stupendous toil, in which he makes the world to be modelled and built by God? What materials, what bars, what machines, what servants, were employed in so vast a work? How could the air, fire, water, and earth, pay obedience and submit to the will of the architect? From whence arose those five forms, of which the rest were composed, so aptly contributing to frame the mind and produce the senses? Cicero: De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods) Book I, section 19

Just Bob said: Steve! You're back! Maybe you've had time to think of just one little example of something which is NOT designed. If you can't think of one, just say so.

Steve said: This contributes to our knowlege by starting inquiry from a productive basis. HOW was life designed?magic Miracle. WHAT tools were used to create the design? God's will. WHY were these tools chosen? Only God knows. WHERE are these tools? In the mind of God. HOW do they work? Miraculously. WHAT are the fundament[al] elements of the design? Divine thoughts. HOW many elements are there? As many as God wanted. Were all the elements introduced at the same time? God is omnitemporal, so yes and no If not, WHEN [was] each element introduced? Whenever it pleased God. [In] WHAT order [was] each element introduced? He is the alpha and the Omega. WHY were they introduced in this particular order? The answer will come through prayer.

Mike Elzinga said:

Steve said: Repetitive chemical reactions and reproduction are different animals. They are more like different universes. What an extraordiary logical stretch to assume that the repetitive nature of a chemical reaction is supporting evidence for the the coordinated, timed execution of a myriad set of chemical reactions which is reproduction. It seems your misunderstanding is due to your consideration of what is now, and not the contemplation of how they got where they are.

Here is an extremely important question that simply sails way over the heads of all ID/creationists (and I do mean all ID/creationists); namely, what do your "theories" predict if the temperature of the organism drops below, say, 5 degrees Celsius or goes above, say, 80 degrees Celsius? A second question is why does temperature never enter into your theories? Those of us who actually know something about this stuff know why these questions mean absolutely nothing to an ID/creationist.

Ray Martinez said: 2. No evolutionary scientist, since Darwin, accepts both concepts existing in nature at the same time because these persons understand the logic of reason #1 as conveying mutual exclusivity.

Steve said: Excess reproduction IS the front loading of information into the genome.

Repetitive chemical reactions and reproduction are different animals. They are more like different universes. What an extraordiary logical stretch to assume that the repetitive nature of a chemical reaction is supporting evidence for the the coordinated, timed execution of a myriad set of chemical reactions which is reproduction.

In fact, I assert that it is an logical impossibility that variation and selection could work without excess reproduction.

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: 2. No evolutionary scientist, since Darwin, accepts both concepts existing in nature at the same time because these persons understand the logic of reason #1 as conveying mutual exclusivity.

[Looks at German Shepherd], [looks back at Ray]...are you daft? And are you seriously claiming that Darwin did not accept that artificial selection happened because it was mutually exclusive with evolution? Have you read OOS?

Michael Fugate said: So its all or none, Ray? God controls everything - and yet we have free will. How can two ideas be in less agreement?

Ray Martinez said: Science supports wholeheartedly: it completely rejects Intelligence to have any role in the production of reality.

John Harshman said:

Ray Martinez said: Science supports wholeheartedly: it completely rejects Intelligence to have any role in the production of reality.

I protest. Science rejects intelligence to have any role in the production of Ray's posts. But Ray's posts should not be confused with reality.

John Harshman said:

Ray Martinez said: Science supports wholeheartedly: it completely rejects Intelligence to have any role in the production of reality.

I protest. Science rejects intelligence to have any role in the production of Ray's posts. But Ray's posts should not be confused with reality.

Ray Martinez said:

John Harshman said:

Ray Martinez said: Science supports wholeheartedly: it completely rejects Intelligence to have any role in the production of reality.

I protest. Science rejects intelligence to have any role in the production of Ray's posts. But Ray's posts should not be confused with reality.

Why is Atheist John Harshman attempting to undermine his own position (complete rejection of Intelligence to have any role in the production of reality)?

Ray Martinez said: [Science] completely rejects Intelligence to have any role in the production of reality.

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: [Science] completely rejects Intelligence to have any role in the production of reality.

How can you type that into a computer without seeing the idiocy of your own claim?

stevaroni said:

Steve said: Let's take that first multi-cellular organism for a start. It has maximum fitness by virtue of its very existence.

No, it has adequate fitness to survive. That is all it needs. It may be the one of the fittest organisms on the planet at this particular point, but that doesn't matter all that much at the moment, since the survival landscape is mostly driven by the need to survive the environment.

This logically implies it has the correct set of components and cellular processess to stay alive.

No, this logically implies that it has a sufficient set to survive. There will eventually be much better sets, but at the moment, this one is good enough.

Next we assume (from a non-teleological, step-wise change POV) this first multi-cellular organism was capable of only a single replication.

Why?

Using the popular non-teleological step-wise change evolutionary meme again, what would be the effect of a single, random variation in any one of the components/chemical processes of this obviously extraordinarily successful configuation of matter? How was it logically possible for this organism to survive even one single variation without pre-existing machinery (information)?

Ah. now we get to the meat of your argument. But it's a straw argument, isn't it? Your entire model imagines one organism that replicates one time, and that's not how it works. Most simple organisms (aided by their offspring) would have been capable of multiplying zillions of times. And, of course, some of them would be mutated, especially with a simple primitive genome with little backup. And, of course, most of those mutations would have been disastrous, because there was very little DNA to begin with, and it was all pretty important and the odds of having a useful mutation are tiny, and therefore almost all mutations would have been fatal. This is readily apparent by the slow, slow rate of progress from single celled organisms 3+ billion years ago to even simple multicellular animals maybe 700mya. Compare that rate of change to modern rates and the progress is glacial. But this is to be expected, if you want to use the "computer program" analogy, in the early days you're a simple machine with not much more than an operating system aboard, and almost any change will break you, not make anything better, and the record shows this. In fact, you probably couldn't have many mutations at all until you had initial mutations that duplicated some of the DNA so there were pieces that could break in the first place without killing the organism. But "almost none" is not none, and even astonishingly long odds, when multiplied by enough tries, turns up winners. Just ask these lottery winners, who all beat vanishingly tiny odds to score that winning ticket.

Poor Steve once again displays his ignorance. Look up the word "fitness" Steve. It doesn't mean what you think it means. And calling something a meme is not an argument. All of your bluster is meaningless. Grow up, learn some real biology, then go away, not necessarily in that order.

Time to close this thread. Game over indeed.

Ray Martinez said:

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: [Science] completely rejects Intelligence to have any role in the production of reality.

How can you type that into a computer without seeing the idiocy of your own claim?

What idiocy? Your bluff is called.

Steve said: 3. There is no strawman argument. The strawman is you imagining organisms could reproduce zillions from the get-go. You have no supporting evidence for this.

eric said:

Steve said: 3. There is no strawman argument. The strawman is you imagining organisms could reproduce zillions from the get-go. You have no supporting evidence for this.

Sure we do; organisms that produce more than once. Chemical catalysts that catalyze the same reaction more than once. Cyclical biochemical reactions, where the cycle occurs over and over again. We observe the process you claim is impossible, and so we reject your claim. You have yet to answer Stevaroni's question: why assume replication reactions can only occur once per organism? What law of physics or chemistry prevents a set of biochemicals from going through the same set of reactions second time?

Steve said: As to Stevaroni's question, I have indeed answered it. Non-teleological step-wise change inherently starts with a single reproduction at a single speed (assumed to be the speed of replicating amino acids since that is the only evidence we have of replication speed in early life). It DOES NOT start with a rapid replicating capability.

In order to kick start it, you have to assume rapid reproduction,

you have to assume replication errors occurred from the get-go, you have to assume the variation would not hinder the organism's next round of reproduction, you have to assume that if the organism could successfully reproduce with the variation, that the variation would not weaken the offspring's viability and shorten its lifespan.

With such a long string of unwarranted assumptions being made on your (pl) part, we are justified in rejecting YOUR claims that non-teleological step-wise change can do much of anything without a slew of already designed objects already in place.

stevaroni said: This is readily apparent by the slow, slow rate of progress from single celled organisms 3+ billion years ago to even simple multicellular animals maybe 700mya. Compare that rate of change to modern rates and the progress is glacial.

Steve said: on Dec 17 Let’s take that first multi-cellular organism for a start. It has maximum fitness by virtue of its very existence.

Steve said: on Dec 23 1. There is no such thing as adequate fitness or the fittest organism.

Scott F said: Also, the notion that there was just one least common ancestor, just a single "first replicator". To my untrained eye, the eukaryotic cell itself appears to be a fossil record of multiple origins of life. Just look at its components: mitochondria, chloroplasts, the nucleus itself. This suggests that there were different kinds of replicating organisms, some of which eventually cooperated (or were co-opted) into creating a more complex replicator.

Steve said: Chemical reactions are the most mundane and uninteresting of aspects of what is taking place during reproduction.

eric said:

Scott F said: Also, the notion that there was just one least common ancestor, just a single "first replicator". To my untrained eye, the eukaryotic cell itself appears to be a fossil record of multiple origins of life. Just look at its components: mitochondria, chloroplasts, the nucleus itself. This suggests that there were different kinds of replicating organisms, some of which eventually cooperated (or were co-opted) into creating a more complex replicator.

I'm not a biologist either, but I believe you're expressing an idea similar to one current hypothesis: that lateral gene (and larger structure) transfer between organisms played a big role in early life. This would mean that we wouldn't have a "family tree" with a traditional trunk and branches early on. Instead, the early 'tree' would look more like interconnected webbing; all organisms related, but not hierarchically so, because lineages would trade or aggressively co-opt components of other lineages a lot more than multicellular life can or does today.

Scott F said:

Steve said: on Dec 17 Let’s take that first multi-cellular organism for a start. It has maximum fitness by virtue of its very existence.

Steve said: on Dec 23 1. There is no such thing as adequate fitness or the fittest organism.

This is nonsense. You can't have it both ways. First you claim that an organism can have "maximum fitness". A week later (in the same thread) you claim there is no such thing as "the fittest organism". If an organism has "maximum fitness", then by definition it must be "the fittest organism".

Scott F said: The notion that organisms could "attack" other organisms, not to acquire raw materials for growth, but to acquire new capabilities.