Arguing Against Intelligent Design

[Biochemist]

Nope. In answer to the question I'm saying it's because the system is non-reversible, that the "rules" aren't preserved - and that you may not even be aware of them all.

I agree with this, but I must have forgotten the question. What were you answering?

.it may be impossible to deduce all of the rules by looking at the current situation.

Yes, this is the essence of chaos theory. A system with more than one non-linear process usually cannot be "solved" for a solution since the differential equations have no solution. Ergo, current state cannot predict previous state.

Just because you don't KNOW the rules (and CAN'T know the rules) doesn't mean the rules don't exist or are insufficient. In fact - the inability to successfully deduce all of the "rules" is actually in a way one of the rules.

Agreed.

All emergent complexity requires is that you acknowledge that you can't (necessarily) put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.

Sure. But if I recall the earlier context, I was asking how that helps us define a mechanism for speciation. There is little doubt that the complexity emerged (heck, we are here aren't we?). The question is "How"? And it is not enough to show emergent complexity. Flow of water down a hill would exemplify that. The additional requirement is to show emergent complexity concurrent with increased organization. Like water flowing uphill into an ice statue of an aardvark.

[Thunderbird]

Nope. In answer to the question I'm saying it's because the system is non-reversible, that the "rules" aren't preserved - and that you may not even be aware of them all. For instance, most Cellular Automata become extinct or static after a finite number of generations. Just because you know the current rules of the game, and the current state doesn't mean it's possible to extrapolate backwards! If you have an empty "board" for instance, it's impossible to know what the previous iteration looked like. If you have a static board, you can go back as many generations as you like, but it's not generally possible to say what the previous "non-static" iteration looked like. With a repeating configuration, you can only go back as far as the "loop-point."

 

...]

These emergent jumps of complexity happen when a system is far from equilibrium A new system bifurcates wiping out the old in favor of the new. This is some time true and some times the old system is just left behind. leaving a trail of evidence of the former state. This is not however the real holy grail of emergence, , the real Rosette Stone is in the middle child between the two ordered states. It is assumed this chaotic state is not worthy of attention because it is extremely short lived and is not quantifiable. I believe this is the part of the equation that contains real answers of the emergence of complex systems.

[Essay]

Like water flowing uphill into an ice statue of an aardvark.

 

If ice statues had some "purpose" in the universe, then it would happen eventually. -but please don't quote me on that....B)

 

...i'm not following this too closely, but I'll just catch up a bit.

BC, I always use the phrase "adaptive capabilities," but in this case I was using your terminology. I also rarely use the word dogma, but I'd read your definition of it, so....

 

But you bring up a good point. Mutation implys some error, but systems that were "too error proof" would have been deselected eventually.

That's why adaptive capabilities seems preferable; it suggests opportunities as opposed to faults.

 

Do you see simple robust networks as resistant to change or accomodating of change?

....I ask rhetorically.

Obviously there has to be a balance. IMHO?

[modest]

Absolutely outstanding post, Modest. We are now (finally) having exactly the conversation I was trying to generate. Yes, although I would not included the word "all" in the position #4. I can't rule out mutation as ever being a mechanism, I just don't think it is primary.

 

1. mutation added to the gene pool. To be more specific - a natural process that follows the laws of probability.
   
2. an intelligence outside the cell added to the gene pool.
   
3. an intelligent process existed inside the life form of common descent capable of designing different offspring. [i would note here that no such thing has been found]
   
4. The life form of common descent had all the genetic material (plus or minus) to create any modern life form.
   

 

It also might not be reasonable to separate #3 and #4. The more you think about it, they become indistinguishable.

 

I see where you're coming from. I separated 3 from 1 and 4 consciously for this situation: The life form of common descent could be claimed to have very limited genetic material - yet also have a mechanism capable of designing material for future species. If the unlikelihood of probabilities is the thing to be overcome it seems claims could be made that either: The first life form had a large gene pool, or a mechanism capable of overcoming the odds by intelligently creating a large gene pool exists in the cell. Both fall outside the idea of an outside intelligence herding-the-sheep as life moved along.

 

On this subject: looking at your theory; I'm wondering why you would claim there is anything intelligent going on in a cell at all. If the first life form had the basic segments we find today (give or take) then no intelligent process since then would be needed. Maybe that's not what you have claimed and I misunderstand.

 

I do think that hypermutation is a misnomer, and is not a mutation at all. It is a well codified, repeatable, intracellular process. I think there is no evidence it has anything to do with mutation. It is a capability that all cells in that category have.Understood, and a credible point. Although if we could identify a set of items that would be falsifiable, the work "theory" would become reasonable. That would be true if that particular proof was the objective. I don't think it is.

 

I, again, see where you're coming from. However, can we agree that a process like hypermutation can create dna coding that has never been seen in nature before? The process would at least allow for that - yes?

 

1) Earth arrival: 4.5 billion years ago

2) Earth cool: 4 billion years ago

3) First prokaryote: 3.5 billion years ago

4) First eukaryote: 1.8 billion years ago

 

So, it was 1.7 billion years (assuming the generally accepted numbers are reasonable).

 

My bad 1.7 - not 3. Nevertheless, life forms today act differently than three billion years ago. Claiming they both have the same genetic makeup or potential would seem to have that hurdle. Why, for instance, would a cell have the ability to process oxygen before we had an oxygen atmosphere? Why would photosynthesis be in the genetic repertoire and not be used? This seems illogical to me.

 

I have always taken the proof case for the problem to be the sudden expansion of life body plans during the Cambrian explosion. A grisly, detailed discussion of that probabilistic issue was posted above a couple of times. I will re-post the link to a previous thread here:

 

Statistical/probability issues in speciation [Archive] - Science Forums

 

I still contend that is is very difficult to get the probability of this evolutionary step down to some palatable number- say, one in a billion, unless the process was substantially predefined.

 

I would just stress that even if we did prove something amiss with the cambrian era, that is not a theory. I agree that ID needs some predictions. I feel, however, any attempt to give it that quality will be stifled by those who don't want ID to be proven wrong. There are, for better or worse, many who like their intelligent design an undeniable expression of faith. That said, you are clearly not in that category and it's unfair to use that attack which some have done.

 

-modest

[TheFaithfulStone]

Sure. But if I recall the earlier context, I was asking how that helps us define a mechanism for speciation. There is little doubt that the complexity emerged (heck, we are here aren't we?). The question is "How"? And it is not enough to show emergent complexity. Flow of water down a hill would exemplify that. The additional requirement is to show emergent complexity concurrent with increased organization. Like water flowing uphill into an ice statue of an aardvark.

 

It seems like you're trying to rewind the tape, and then when you can't do it, saying that there must be some OTHER factor that keeps you from doing it.

 

Look at the Conways Life thing. You can literally draw random crap on a 2D board and wind up with complicated global structures.

 

Emergent complexity IS the emergence of complex (and unpredictable) organization out of simple rules. It's NOT chaotic.

 

The aardvark thing has already been addressed multiple times - it's a variant of the blind-watchmaker argument, and it just doesn't hold up. If you selected ice crystals for "could be part of an aardvark statue" - you'd end up with an aardvark statue in short order.

 

That said - there may BE an answer to "How does speciation occur?" Or there may be more than one right answer to that question.

 

So to break it down:

 

The fact:

It's not readily apparent how current cell formations arose out of whatever prior state they held (if any.)

 

1) You claim:

A) Given the current state of cells, it's looks unlikely that the current state could have arisen out of a prior state.

B) Therefore we must be missing some vital piece of information that would enable us to deduce the prior state. Fundamentally, that there is some "secret fact" that will give us the keys to the kingdom.

 

2) I claim:

A) Given the notion of emergent complexity, it's often impossible to determine what the prior state is.

:) Therefore, the fact that we cannot determine it is not absolutely indicative of a missing piece of information. Fundamentally, that gaps in our understanding are not necessarily gaps of fact.

 

Your proscription for a solution:

We should look for whatever vital piece(s) of information would enable us to deduce the prior state.

 

My proscription for a solution:

No amount of information would necessarily enable us to deduce the prior state, so we should concentrate on finding prior states and rule sets that COULD lead to the current state.

 

We may never find the "correct" answer, but our understanding of the processes will increase.

 

TFS

[Thunderbird]

I can see enough information and energy on this thread to jump to a higher state of understanding!B)

[Biochemist]

Emergent complexity IS the emergence of complex (and unpredictable) organization out of simple rules. It's NOT chaotic.

Huh? You are saying life is not chaotic? Are we using different definitions of "chaotic"?

 

1) You claim:

A) Given the current state of cells, it's looks unlikely that the current state could have arisen out of a prior state.

Only that it is improbable through a speciation-by-mutation model.

B) Therefore we must be missing some vital piece of information that would enable us to deduce the prior state. Fundamentally, that there is some "secret fact" that will give us the keys to the kingdom.

Not really. I am saying we can search for complex processes that substantially change the probability of creation of (i.e., steer) a daughter species. These processes are likely to be complex enough that they themselves are as complex as the daughter species. Ergo, they were not generated by prior mutation either.

2) I claim:

A) Given the notion of emergent complexity, it's often impossible to determine what the prior state is.

:) Therefore, the fact that we cannot determine it is not absolutely indicative of a missing piece of information. Fundamentally, that gaps in our understanding are not necessarily gaps of fact.

I think we agree on this. (sentence edited late)

Your proscription for a solution:

We should look for whatever vital piece(s) of information would enable us to deduce the prior state.

We might agree here. We should (continue to) look for the complex intracellular process that make speciation probable (or even possible) and stop assuming that species arose because a UV waved knocked a guanine out of a codon.

 

My proscription for a solution:

No amount of information would necessarily enable us to deduce the prior state, so we should concentrate on finding prior states and rule sets that COULD lead to the current state.

I think we agree on this.

 

Are we just in violent agreement?

[Biochemist]

Essay- I couldn't find where you got this quote, so I lost some of the context

BC, I always use the phrase "adaptive capabilities," but in this case I was using your terminology. I also rarely use the word dogma, but I'd read your definition of it, so....

 

But you bring up a good point. Mutation implys some error, but systems that were "too error proof" would have been deselected eventually.

That's why adaptive capabilities seems preferable; it suggests opportunities as opposed to faults.

 

Do you see simple robust networks as resistant to change or accomodating of change?

....I ask rhetorically.

Obviously there has to be a balance. IMHO?

But I think that systems that are "too error proof" should exist in perpetuity essentially unchanged unless they incur an environmental stress that wipes them out. But I love your terminology of "adaptive capability". I may have to steal that.

 

And I do think that "robust" species/network/population is a balance between resistance and adaptation.

[Thunderbird]

I can see enough information and energy on this thread to jump to a higher state of understanding!:)

.......Or not:shrug:

 

"Natural Selection is a headsman who eliminates species formed by other processes."

 

Stephen Jay Gould

 

 

"There is always hope that the experimentally accumulated knowledge will lead eventually to fundamentally organizing principles such as those expressed in physical laws."

 

 

Gabor Forgacs and Stuart Newman

Biological Physics of the Developing Embryo

Cambridge, 2005

[Biochemist]

The life form of common descent could be claimed to have very limited genetic material - yet also have a mechanism capable of designing material for future species.

Yes. And, counterintuitively, the exact four DNA bases and the exact 20 amino acids that would build the entire life architecture for the next 3.5 billion years. Hmmm.

If the unlikelihood of probabilities is the thing to be overcome it seems claims could be made that either: The first life form had a large gene pool, or a mechanism capable of overcoming the odds by intelligently creating a large gene pool exists in the cell.

Yes. And since we know first is definitely untrue, we would have to hypothesize a mechanism (i.e., another coding mechanism) to create genes. That is, the code for protein transcription is one "interpretation" of the DNA sequence. The code for future new genes is another as-yet-unspecified coding schema.

Both fall outside the idea of an outside intelligence herding-the-sheep as life moved along.

Yes. It is more like the outside intelligence knew where all of the sheep in the herd were supposed to end up, and arranged them appropriately to get there. Ugh, what a crummy analogy.

On this subject: looking at your theory; I'm wondering why you would claim there is anything intelligent going on in a cell at all. If the first life form had the basic segments we find today (give or take) then no intelligent process since then would be needed.

I didn't intend to defend the nomenclature of of ID, and more than the litany of other theories that have bad names (e.g., natural selection? ). I would have preferred some other name, but I didn't make the call.

I, again, see where you're coming from. However, can we agree that a process like hypermutation can create dna coding that has never been seen in nature before? The process would at least allow for that - yes?

Absolutely. Per my paragraph above, we have to hypothesize some mechanism to get new genes.

My bad 1.7 - not 3. Nevertheless, life forms today act differently than three billion years ago.

Well, my sweetie claims that I never change. Not even in 3 billion years. She has a point.

Why, for instance, would a cell have the ability to process oxygen before we had an oxygen atmosphere? Why would photosynthesis be in the genetic repertoire and not be used? This seems illogical to me.

It does suggest that the proto-genes (that is, the DNA that is not yet genes but is likely to be) seemed prescient. But just the fact (an apparently undeniable one) that the first prokaryote "selected" the correct 4 DNA bases and 20 amino acids (out of an infinite variety of each) seems a little prescient too. There are only very rare cases where any life form has any other DNA base or a 21st amino acid (although there are a couple of amino acid examples).

I would just stress that even if we did prove something amiss with the cambrian era, that is not a theory. I agree that ID needs some predictions. I feel, however, any attempt to give it that quality will be stifled by those who don't want ID to be proven wrong.

Absolutely. But unfortunately, that is science too. Always has been.

There are, for better or worse, many who like their intelligent design an undeniable expression of faith.

True. We also have the opposite folks that use Darwinianism as a proof-case for atheism. Neither is true.

 

As an extension to this point, I (frankly) never had any difficulty seeing evolution as a tool of the Creator, ergo I never saw this as a theistic construct. I always thought that anyone who did see a proof either way just was not a scientist (but heck, most folks aren't). As time went on, I began to think that if speciation-by-mutation was true, God would have had to have been involved, because the probability was just so remote. That is, I actually began to see the standard dogma as a subtle proof case for theism (sounds backwards, huh?). Talk about being an outlier.

 

Then I realized that the evidence really did not support a mutative model. The fact that the "other" conclusion suggested something theological didn't bother me much, since I had already come to that conclusion with the standard dogma anyway. Ergo, there is a sense in which being a theist gives you a little more freedom to accept possibilities that the non-theists would reject out of hand.

 

Go figure.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Huh? You are saying life is not chaotic? Are we using different definitions of "chaotic"?

 

Apparently. In the context I'm using it, chaotic means "Future is not predictable from the past, OR future states are unorganized (meaning there are no predictable discrete structures.)"

 

Organic life is definitely well structured. That's kinda the problem isn't it?

 

tfs

[HydrogenBond]

Life not only goes in the direction of increasing energy potential by storing and accumulating reduced compounds, but is also lowering the entropy of molecules. For example carbon fixation, the operative work "fixation" lowers the entropy of free floating CO2 molecules and puts them into fixed organic compounds. Two cells dividing will increase the entropy, but after that the two cells build up food reserves by lower the entropy of the input. For example, take a tree and burn it. This will not only lower the energy value within the tree but will increase the entropy of all the atoms in the tree. After the burn, other life will take this material and incorporate into their tiny little package.

 

So the inception of life has to go against two opposing potentials relative to the bulk of nature, namely lowest energy and highest entropy. So what we need is a logical way to counter both of these potentials. Without some logic, random has two strong countering universal potentials reversing lucky seven every time it throws the dice.

 

One possible way to overcome the energy problem, to make it easier to increase the energy value for pre-life, is if things initially begin within a slightly reduced environment. Under those conditions reduced materials would be the lowest energy state. It only become high energy when there is O2 around. One way to lower entropy using only natural potentials is a scenario like a pool of water, evaporating, concentrating the organics so random collisions are more frequent for chemical reactions. This won't get you life, but it pushes the potentials in the proper direction. Even if we assume random, we have just given random a little help, so it isn't being opposed quite as much. There are other scenarios.

 

Speciation also appears to follow the increasing energy trail. Since life is designed to gain energy and lower entropy, one might expect the DNA will be following the same path. For example, lowering entropy on the DNA would imply the movement toward perfection in terms of activity. The increasing of energy on the DNA would be connected to increasing its activity, since what is produced will lead to further production of reduce compounds.

 

With the DNA, bigger does not always mean better. Better in terms of increasing potential energy means a higher degree of activity. In the case of multicellular, the DNA activity becomes distributed so even more DNA is active at any given time for the summation affect. A single cell with the same DNA can show high activity, but it does not lead to the same level of potential energy storage as one large connected thing. It is logical that this would be one of the steps needed to keep energy increasing.

[Galapagos]

Pharyngula: Ontogenetic depth

Pharyngula: Have a querulous Paul Nelson Day!

 

Dunno how many of you guys check pharyngula, but these posts might be of interest to those following the thread.

[REASON]

As time went on, I began to think that if speciation-by-mutation was true, God would have had to have been involved, because the probability was just so remote. That is, I actually began to see the standard dogma as a subtle proof case for theism (sounds backwards, huh?). Talk about being an outlier.

 

Then I realized that the evidence really did not support a mutative model. The fact that the "other" conclusion suggested something theological didn't bother me much, since I had already come to that conclusion with the standard dogma anyway. Ergo, there is a sense in which being a theist gives you a little more freedom to accept possibilities that the non-theists would reject out of hand.

 

Right, that god did it. It seems no matter how you look at it, God is ultimately responsible in your eyes, no? You can dance around it in your discussions here, but that's really where you are with this isn't it?

 

No matter how weak you claim mutative evidence to be, there will always be more evidence in support of it, or any other natural explantation, than supporting an all powerful supernatural creator.

 

To me, it makes far more sense that an all powerful god would create life similar to what is described in Genesis, than to turn loose a microscopic organism with only the potential of life in a hostile primordial soup to cook for billions of years, only to have an approximately 99.99% failure rate in the form of extinction.

 

If the goal of God, with the creation of life, is to arrive at his blessed human children, why not just create Adam whole as the bible describes.

 

As I read your arguments you keep arriving at the same conclusion: It's just too complicated and improbable to have happened naturally the way contemporary science tries to explain it. But you aren't seeking a natural alternative. You favor the idea that the first elements of life were prepackaged with all the information necessary to produce all of the complex life forms to follow. This is the premise of Intelligent Design, which, no matter how you slice it, points to a supernatural creator as the explanation for what initially provided this inherent information.

 

A supernatural creator as an explanation is not falsifiable, and is therefore an explanation that is not scientific.

 

It is simply faith.

[modest]

I think what this boils down to is how science has never found an outside intelligence yet needed in its description of nature.

 

Everything that once was thought to be caused by unnatural or supernatural or extra-natural processes (ie spirits make trees grow, gods make the planets move through the sky, Zeus causes lightning etc.) these things have all been taken away from intelligences other than our own. When something is too complex or too unlikely to be natural - it ends up being explained with natural laws.

 

Intelligent design is meaningless and broken without a creator (an intelligence other than human - an 'x-factor'). Is ID going to be the first time an equation of science gets an x-factor? Is this the thing that stops the trend? No. ID is a very small objection to something that works very well. As sure as lightning was taken from the hand of Zeus and given to science - so will the origin of the species.

 

And, I don't think science excludes an x-factor. If our world had been different we may have found A + B + 'the hand of god' = C. But, we have never found that. To assume this is where it'll be found is just betting against all probability.

 

-modest

[Biochemist]

Pharyngula: Ontogenetic depth

Pharyngula: Have a querulous Paul Nelson Day!

 

Dunno how many of you guys check pharyngula, but these posts might be of interest to those following the thread.

If I can make a counterpoint (sort of) to these links. I don't think that Paul Nelson did a particularly good job of defining Ontogenetic Depth, but I think the idea has merit. It would certainly take some effort to rigorously define the metric for measurement. The critique in Pharyngula seems to throw out the baby with the bathwater, in that it (correctly) critiques the weakness in the definition, then suggests that

He doesn't have a way to measure ontogenetic depth...at least, not any way that he has explained, and that can be justified. There is no reason to think that this parameter even describes complexity better than, for instance, counting cell types at maturity, which is also a fuzzy and difficult job.

I think this suggests that the idea of some sort of metric (and a name for it) has merit. Development and consolidation of opinion around new complex metrics is worthwhile. This is part of what some of us call science.

 

It is a bit of a shame that in the middle of a valid critique, the author reverts to namecalling:

What is it with all these ID creationists...

We essentially have

 

1) a thoughtful, but weak assertion that a metric for biologic complexity has value, and Nelson asserts a framework

2) the author critiques the framework, but tacitly acknowledges that a better metric might have some value

3) the author reverts to namecalling to denigrate to original premise.

 

That is not science.

[Galapagos]

In this edge.com article, Dennett slices effortlessly through the kind of ID pseudoscience and sophistry we all encounter in our journey through biological science. I always love reading and listening to Dan Dennett, because beyond being clear and insightful, his analogies and thought experiments are simply so entertaining. Definitely worth reading for those who have been following this thread.

 

Edge 166

The focus on intelligent design has, paradoxically, obscured something else: genuine scientific controversies about evolution that abound. In just about every field there are challenges to one established theory or another. The legitimate way to stir up such a storm is to come up with an alternative theory that makes a prediction that is crisply denied by the reigning theory — but that turns out to be true, or that explains something that has been baffling defenders of the status quo, or that unifies two distant theories at the cost of some element of the currently accepted view.

 

To date, the proponents of intelligent design have not produced anything like that. No experiments with results that challenge any mainstream biological understanding. No observations from the fossil record or genomics or biogeography or comparative anatomy that undermine standard evolutionary thinking.

 

Instead, the proponents of intelligent design use a ploy that works something like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a "controversy" to teach.

 

...

 

In short, no science. Indeed, no intelligent design hypothesis has even been ventured as a rival explanation of any biological phenomenon. This might seem surprising to people who think that intelligent design competes directly with the hypothesis of non-intelligent design by natural selection. But saying, as intelligent design proponents do, "You haven't explained everything yet," is not a competing hypothesis. Evolutionary biology certainly hasn't explained everything that perplexes biologists. But intelligent design hasn't yet tried to explain anything.

 

To formulate a competing hypothesis, you have to get down in the trenches and offer details that have testable implications. So far, intelligent design proponents have conveniently sidestepped that requirement, claiming that they have no specifics in mind about who or what the intelligent designer might be.

 

To see this shortcoming in relief, consider an imaginary hypothesis of intelligent design that could explain the emergence of human beings on this planet:

 

About six million years ago, intelligent genetic engineers from another galaxy visited Earth and decided that it would be a more interesting planet if there was a language-using, religion-forming species on it, so they sequestered some primates and genetically re-engineered them to give them the language instinct, and enlarged frontal lobes for planning and reflection. It worked.

 

If some version of this hypothesis were true, it could explain how and why human beings differ from their nearest relatives, and it would disconfirm the competing evolutionary hypotheses that are being pursued.

 

We'd still have the problem of how these intelligent genetic engineers came to exist on their home planet, but we can safely ignore that complication for the time being, since there is not the slightest shred of evidence in favor of this hypothesis.

 

But here is something the intelligent design community is reluctant to discuss: no other intelligent-design hypothesis has anything more going for it. In fact, my farfetched hypothesis has the advantage of being testable in principle: we could compare the human and chimpanzee genomes, looking for unmistakable signs of tampering by these genetic engineers from another galaxy. Finding some sort of user's manual neatly embedded in the apparently functionless "junk DNA" that makes up most of the human genome would be a Nobel Prize-winning coup for the intelligent design gang, but if they are looking at all, they haven't come up with anything to report.