Sunday showdown: Both parties look to sway fence-sitters for this weekend's healthcare vote 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Enough said, now?
The question of what “is” is notwithstanding, I would have thought all agree that
It all begins with a video snippet in which evolutionist Dr. Richard Dawkins appears to be stumped by an interviewer’s request for one “example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that can be seen to increase the information on the genome.” The scientist is not able to comply.
A subsequent post comes to Dawkins’ rescue: “Down’s Syndrome!” he says triumphantly, explaining in detail how indeed the resulting human being has a surfeit of chromosomes (hence, genetic information).
I would have thought at this point: Case is closed. No further embarrassment, please.
But no. A posting in response respectfully demurs that though Down Syndrome does indeed answers the interviewer’s question, this development is not customarily regarded as a helpful one.
The Down Syndrome guy, even now, does not consider himself washed up. To my bemusement, he rebuts to his rebutter as follows: “Your idea about mutations weakening us is wrong. Mutations can be harmful or beneficial, depending on the environment. Down’s Syndrome may appear to be detrimental. But who knows, there could be a disease out there that could wipe out all of us but spare people with Down’s Syndrome….it all depends on your environment.”
Enough said now?
back to top65 Comments to “Enough said, now?”
Oy…
Sounds like arguments around here sometimes. It’ll be interesting to see what our resident liberal scientists make of this.
If there is no designer then there is no “correct” design, there is just what “is”. And that’s that. No value judgement can be made. So words like “good” and “beneficial” have no real meaning. So in the mind of a secular naturalist, Down’s Syndrome could indeed not be a bad thing….
Funny thing though. They all seem to have no problem denouncing things they see as bad… Y’know like religion?! hypocritical really….
Report comment to moderator
Here is another view of the same video that reveals more about what was going on.
Report comment to moderator
The problem is in the premise of the question. We’ve had this discussion around these parts before. Evolutionary change has nothing to do with “increased genetic information.” The number of chromosomes has no bearing on how complex the organism is.
It’s a red herring, so it’s no wonder Dawkins had difficulty answering. Imagine being interviewed about gardening and being asked how much gasoline your wheelbarrow takes.
Also, while it’s hard to see Down Syndrome as ever being a plus, the commenter is correct that whether a mutated trait is beneficial or not is partly dependent on where the organism is. A change that makes a particular type of fish able to swim a bit faster won’t make much difference when there’s plenty of food for all the fish; but if the food supply is sparse and the fish are competing for it, the faster ones have an advantage.
Report comment to moderator
“The number of chromosomes has no bearing on how complex the organism is.”
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but and increased number of chromosomes and “increased genetic information” are not exactly the same thing are they?
Report comment to moderator
According to the poster referenced in Andree’s article they apparently are!
The problem is that the notion of increased genetic information is not really meaningful. What does it mean? The number of chromosomes? The number of genes?
It is a Creationist concept, one that has a conveniently fuzzy definition and that scientists mostly don’t worry about. The important thing in evolution is not some quantifiable “amount” of information, but what the genes actually do. What proteins do they code for? Are they “on” or “off” during certain processes?
How much gasoline does your wheelbarrow take?
Report comment to moderator
Well it depends on how hard I rev the engine…
Report comment to moderator
Dawkins wrote an article giving context for his pause and attempting to respond to the question:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm
Report comment to moderator
SteveG– If the answer was “the question is ludicrous,” Dawkins (of all people) wouldn’t have been shy about saying so.
It is true that, by any measure, chimps have more “genetic material” than bacteria. So, it’s reasonable to ask how or whether that might happen evolutionarily.
But who knows, there could be a disease out there that could wipe out all of us but spare people with Down’s Syndrome….it all depends on your environment.
This is true in a “monkeys might fly out my butt” sort of way. Given a butt of the proper caliber and properly placed monkeys. . . .
Report comment to moderator
The sickle cell trait (otherwise considered a detremental genetic mutation) confers a protective advantage against malaria.
Monkeys, start your engines {:~)
Report comment to moderator
Considering trisomism an example of “more genetic information” is like reckoning the range of my vocabulary will be improved by owning a second copy of Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate.
Report comment to moderator
> Mutations can be harmful or beneficial,
> depending on the environment.
My understanding is that seedless oranges came about from a mutation. If you know how to splice branches to reproduce the tree on another root stock, this may be considered beneficial. If you rely on planting seeds to reproduce orange trees, this would not be beneficial.
Or maybe someday we’ll learn that eating orange seeds is good for us and wish we had more oranges with seeds.
Report comment to moderator
What an ignorant and petty post from Seu, who clearly didn’t do the requisite homework!
Dr. Richard Dawkins appears to be stumped by an interviewer’s request for one “example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that can be seen to increase the information on the genome.” The scientist is not able to comply.
That’s odd – since there are many obvious examples of how mutations increase information – like Gene Duplication
Down’s Syndrome is an example of too much gene duplication, since there is chromosomal duplication. This is certainly a great deal of extra information. Actually, too much information.
But duplication of single genes followed by separate evolution of each under mutation and natural selection is documented and constitutes straight-forward increases of “information.” For example:
Gene Duplication and the adaptive evolution of a classic genetic switch
Report comment to moderator
Considering trisomism an example of “more genetic information” is like reckoning the range of my vocabulary will be improved by owning a second copy of Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate.
A bad analogy, but instructively so. If both your dictionary copies kept mutating independently with natural selection for the best 2 copies of independently mutated dictionaries, you’d end up with two NEW and DIFFERENT dictionaries that would have more “words” than the previous single one.
That’s probably stretching the analogy further than it should go, but hopefully the point is a little clearer.
Report comment to moderator
“The number of chromosomes has no bearing on how complex the organism is.”
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but and increased number of chromosomes and “increased genetic information” are not exactly the same thing are they?
Not all chromosomes have the same number of genes, eh? We have one less chromosome than our chimp cousins, because 2 of what became the chimp genes fused to make human chromosome #2. This happened without a huge loss of “genetic information.”
Report comment to moderator
From SteveG’s link to Dawkins:
In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.” It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists – a thing I normally don’t do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.
My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later 1, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content 2. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe that their question cannot be answered! Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it.
With hindsight – given that I had been suckered into admitting them into my house in the first place – it might have been wiser simply to answer the question. But I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth – I have a horror of blinding people with science – and this was not a question that could be answered in a soundbite. First you first have to explain the technical meaning of “information”. Then the relevance to evolution, too, is complicated – not really difficult but it takes time. Rather than engage now in further recriminations and disputes about exactly what happened at the time of the interview (for, to be fair, I should say that the Australian producer’s memory of events seems to differ from mine), I shall try to redress the matter now in constructive fashion by answering the original question, the “Information Challenge”, at adequate length – the sort of length you can achieve in a proper article.
See the rest of the link for a good explanation
Seu – you need to read this:The Information Challenge
Report comment to moderator
From SteveG’s link to Dawkins:
In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.” It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists – a thing I normally don’t do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.
My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later 1, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content 2. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe that their question cannot be answered! Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it.
With hindsight – given that I had been suckered into admitting them into my house in the first place – it might have been wiser simply to answer the question. But I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth – I have a horror of blinding people with science – and this was not a question that could be answered in a soundbite. First you first have to explain the technical meaning of “information”. Then the relevance to evolution, too, is complicated – not really difficult but it takes time. Rather than engage now in further recriminations and disputes about exactly what happened at the time of the interview (for, to be fair, I should say that the Australian producer’s memory of events seems to differ from mine), I shall try to redress the matter now in constructive fashion by answering the original question, the “Information Challenge”, at adequate length – the sort of length you can achieve in a proper article.
See the rest of the link for a good explanation
Seu – you need to read this: The Information Challenge
Report comment to moderator
What an ignorant and petty post from Seu, who clearly didn’t do the requisite homework!
Really? She only reports what happened. Dawkins was asked a question, didn’t have a ready answer, and later came up with a bad one. It isn’t Andree Seu’s “requisite homework” that’s lacking; it’s Dawkins’.
But, by all means, keep spreading that sunshine!
Report comment to moderator
Really? She only reports what happened. Dawkins was asked a question, didn’t have a ready answer, and later came up with a bad one. It isn’t Andree Seu’s “requisite homework” that’s lacking; it’s Dawkins’.
No – she reports a propagandized account of what happened and interprets it without even a shred of background literacy about the topic. If she had done her homework, she would have also understood this side of what happened:
The Information Challenge by Richard Dawkins
Report comment to moderator
Really? She only reports what happened. Dawkins was asked a question, didn’t have a ready answer, and later came up with a bad one. It isn’t Andree Seu’s “requisite homework” that’s lacking; it’s Dawkins’.
No – she reports a propagandized account of what happened and interprets it without even a shred of background literacy about the topic. If she had done her homework, she would have also understood this side of what happened:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm
“The Information Challenge by Richard Dawkins”
Report comment to moderator
Really? She only reports what happened. Dawkins was asked a question, didn’t have a ready answer, and later came up with a bad one. It isn’t Andree Seu’s “requisite homework” that’s lacking; it’s Dawkins’.
No – she reports a propagandized account of what happened and interprets it without even a shred of background literacy about the topic.
Report comment to moderator
From Dawkins:
In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.” It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists – a thing I normally don’t do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.
My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later 1, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content 2. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe that their question cannot be answered! Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it.
With hindsight – given that I had been suckered into admitting them into my house in the first place – it might have been wiser simply to answer the question. But I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth – I have a horror of blinding people with science – and this was not a question that could be answered in a soundbite. First you first have to explain the technical meaning of “information”. Then the relevance to evolution, too, is complicated – not really difficult but it takes time. Rather than engage now in further recriminations and disputes about exactly what happened at the time of the interview (for, to be fair, I should say that the Australian producer’s memory of events seems to differ from mine), I shall try to redress the matter now in constructive fashion by answering the original question, the “Information Challenge”, at adequate length – the sort of length you can achieve in a proper article.
The rest of the article is linked in post #7
Seu should read it!
Report comment to moderator
Nothing like an evolution thread to showcase liberal open-mindedness.
Report comment to moderator
And exactly how “open minded” is the phrase, “Enough said, now?” as a faux QED to complete nonsense?! It’s nothing but self-righteous smugness as the icing on a cake of ignorance.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry about the multiple posts, but my posts 16 and 17 didn’t appear until after I posted 21, and I thought they had simply bounced!!!!
Report comment to moderator
It seems the thread held up posts with the link, but then published them later after I thought they had been rejected and had re-posted…
Report comment to moderator
#1 Make it Man.
So, what Clinton was saying is really is – is the lack of correct design by a designer? Is just popped out of nowhere by happenstance after a million, billion things (mutations) happening by no design, rhyme or reason yet, still happening in perfect sequence somehow to be what is is – as we know it so well today.
I think we shouldn’t ever get too near each other – just to be safe if you know what I mean
Report comment to moderator
Sure Spinoza. I figured you were just helping me out with an object lesson on how repetition of information doesn’t result more information.
BTW, I should clarify – the duplicate dictonary analogy holds up for some but not all trisomies, depending on when the chromosomal duplication occured. In some cases I believe it results in replication of chromosomally identical information. It goes back to the question of whether this really amounts to more information or more of the same information. If the sum of novel informational content remains unchanged, in a sense it’s not really “more.” In fact, from what I recall, in the case of Trisomy 21, the problem is over-expression of genes (more product, same template) not expression additional, novel or mutated genes.
Report comment to moderator
#3 SteveG,
It isn’t an advantage if your wonderfully evolved fast fish can’t see. Their fastness would just make them miss catching food at a faster rate, and they would just die off sooner because they would use up so much energy unnecessarily, than a slow fish would that could see well.
It is always better not to be deaf, dumb or blind at the minimum rather than be fast
Report comment to moderator
Llama: Now you’re catching on! Exactly right.
Report comment to moderator
“BTW, I should clarify – the duplicate dictonary analogy holds up for some but not all trisomies, depending on when the chromosomal duplication occured.”
On the other hand, having extra copies can in fact provide genetic advantage, even if they are exact copies. For example, Deinococcus Radiodurans withstands dessication and/or high doses of radiation by having 4 copies and continually repairing DNA damage by reference to the intact copies. It’s a good thing to have a few dictionaries around if their pages tear easily.
Report comment to moderator
StuBob:
Andree Seu’s post is built around a false premise. The question Dawkins blinked on was one that makes no sense to someone who understands the science.
So people point out the deception and you deny their “open-mindedness?”
Tell me, what would constitute open-mindedness to you? Allowing people to make clearly false statements without correction? How does that help increase understanding?
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza,
Thank you for the link on the “information challenge.” Working in IT my job revolves around processing information, but an awful lot of what we process is “data” not “information.” And defining what makes the difference in quanitifiable terms is pretty tough. I hadn’t heard of Shannon before, his work sounds pretty interesting. I admit some parts of the article lost me (especially the globin gene stuff), but on the whole it seems a reasonable response to the question – and obviously not one that would fit in a short video.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza said:
Spinoza’s numerous posts testifies that a whole lot of words is not always a good thing. Here’s a timely post today that helps put Spinoza’s spewing in proper perspective:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5673/
Report comment to moderator
#33 Yes of course there’s a creationist anti-science article for every fact observed in biology.
From your link – the conclusion:
Gene regulation networks are irreducibly complex and constitute an insurmountable barrier for the theory.
This is just an outright lie with no evidence to back it up either in or outside this article!
Creationists are always affirming (with no evidence) principles they make up, like the god-of-the-gaps version of Irreducible Complexity or the notion of a Genetic Barrier which purports to make macro-evolution impossible.
These are simply affirmations without evidence as if one were saying a creed. There is not a shred of scientific evidence for either of these concepts, and there is a good deal of evidence to the contrary.
Report comment to moderator
Add to the above the concepts one which seems to be the claim of this thread:
“Natural selection can’t account for the creation of information needed by evolution.”
Why not? By saying this over and over again to willing listeners who know little or nothing about biology, creationists create a cult following of people convinced that there is an “information” problem with evolutionary theory. This is mystifying to scientists who find no evidence for any such thing.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza said:
Actually, your statement is a lie, since the link takes you to a scientific paper, not just an article. To say it was just someone’s opinion is misleading. The authors are bonafide scientists, using bonafide scientific writing methods to come to bonafide scientific conclusions. (not to mention the 77 references noted, which makes your quote an even bigger lie.) By the way, bonafide means “in good faith”, which is pretty much absent in any evolutionist’ argument.
Report comment to moderator
Awstar at #36:
Actually, your statement is a lie, since the link takes you to a scientific paper, not just an article. To say it was just someone’s opinion is misleading. The authors are bonafide scientists, using bonafide scientific writing methods to come to bonafide scientific conclusions. (not to mention the 77 references noted, which makes your quote an even bigger lie.)
If by “bonafide scientific writing” you mean using big words derived from Latin, you’re probably right. But if you mean rigorous, peer-reviewed research, nope, sorry.
The 77 footnotes are interesting. I skimmed through it and I noticed that most the footnotes come when the authors are descriibing what evolutionists say. But when they assert that the evolutionists are wrong, there’s no footnote.
Here’s an example: Dozens of proteins activate or inhibit each other in the blood coagulation and subsequent clot-dissolving pathways. Accidental deletion of factors leads to diseases such as hemophilia. Since many factors share similar functional domains, they are thought to have evolved by ancient gene duplication events, including polyploidy during the Cambrian explosion.75–77 [Reference to evolutionary idea, three footnotes.] However, these duplications have to be followed by coordinated mutations that ‘work just right’ (Says who? Where’s the footnote?)
On other occasions, when there are footnoted references to ID or Creationist statements, they just go to popular books or magazines, not peer-reviewed scientific journals.
However, the articles fatal flaw comes right up front, in the introductory text.
Since the basis for biological complexity is genetic complexity, some biologists propose that the complicated genomes in modern organisms arose from one or a few genes in a common ancestor through duplication, with subsequent neofunctionalization through mutation and natural selection.
In fact, the basis for biological complexity is NOT genetic complexity, or at least not only that. The authors are setting up a strawman here, which they’ll knock down when they get to the section titled “Genome complexity” and reveal that (gasp!) corn has more genes than humans!!!
(Right … because no biologist ever noticed that before.)
If you start your argument by telling your opponents what they believe, it’s not terribly hard to win the debate. But you don’t really win much doing so.
Report comment to moderator
Tell me, what would constitute open-mindedness to you?
A conversation like this:
Me: Let’s talk about intelligent design.
You: Yes, let’s.
Or even, allowing you to maintain your sanctimony:
Me: Let’s talk about intelligent design.
You: I’ve looked it over and found it lacking. I’ll admit that I’m predisposed against it, since ID requires a Creator, which I have a hard time swallowing from the outset.
Instead, we get:
Me: Let’s talk about intelligent design.
You: Shut up. You’re stupid.
Report comment to moderator
#36 The link takes you to “Creation Ministries International.” This is not a scientific journal. The article has some science in it, true enough. It reviews a simplified straw-man version of gene duplication and cherry picks references to sound “sciency” (none of these references have anything to do with the nay-saying claim as far as I can tell!), and then points out that gene duplication doesn’t account for everything. Well nobody ever said it did! The question creationists typically pose is, “Can you give an example of how information can be created in evolution?” Gene duplication gives such an example, but it’s not the only possibility!
Report comment to moderator
#38 Stubob – let’s talk about intelligent design. Supposedly it doesn’t require a Divine “designer.” What part of it would you like to talk about?
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza: The opening post is based on the request for “one example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that can be seen to increase the information on the genome.” And the paper I pointed you to has gone through all the papers referenced and have come up with the same answer Dawkins gave with his silence. Namely, Science has not yet found any new functions arising from genetic mutation or evolutionary process, especially through gene duplication.
Sorry, facts are facts.
Report comment to moderator
The opening post is based on the request for “one example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that can be seen to increase the information on the genome.”
It’s based on a creationist video that is engineered to make it look like there’s no answer. Please read the full article from the link in #7. If you had bothered, you’d find Dawkins gives an eloquent example of how hemoglobin is a composite of 4 different “globins” that have evolved through gene duplication. Not all duplication is used, since there are even more “pseudogenes” for other globins that are no longer expressed.
Sorry, facts are facts.
And the reason you have none is that you only listen to people who claim there are none, despite loads of evidence to the contrary.
Report comment to moderator
StuBob, let’s get with the program. Spinoza has lodged himself on the Christian WorldMag blog as a Darwinian ideolog to enlighten ignorant believers on the overarching truth of natural selection by random variation as a substitute for Creation.
Our role is to be duly impressed by his superior knowledge and above all to refrain from the heretical notion of theistic evolution.
Having established the foundational truth of evolution that reduces human beings to the state of a mere complex animal, Spinoza is then free to advance the correlative truths of abortion, euthanasia, and assorted forms of sexual perversity.
The fact that you are a well educated physician and a devout Christian confuses this poor soul who in his shallow intellectual scheme cannot allow a scientist to be a devout Christian.
Report comment to moderator
#40 — Explain to me why irreducible complexity isn’t compelling.
Report comment to moderator
#43
* I don’t think evolution is a substitute for creation; I’m happy with science in the general framework of there being a “Creator.”
* I don’t think theistic evolution is heretical or ruled out by science
* I’m not a reductionist as you indicate; but I have a higher view of animals than you apparently do!
* I have no problem with scientists being a devout Christian; I myself am not a Christian for reasons that have little to do with science and more to do with history. Ken Miller, Francis Collins, the Pope, etc., etc., or even Michael Dowd (Thank God for Evolution) are all fine with me! In fact, one reason I hate IDC is that I’d like to see a reasonable theology succeed, and I am quite certain that efforts like those of the Discovery Institute are in the way!
Report comment to moderator
#44 Good question.
Standard answers here: Irreducible complexity and Michael Behe
Irreducible Complexity (IC) claims that some organic features cannot function in their current capacity by a slight simplification, therefore there is no path by which they could have evolved to their current state.
This assumes that you know all possible pathways to the current configuration, something that is emphatically not true, so this quickly becomes an argument from ignorance or “God of the gaps.” Even if we don’t know how a particular system evolved in history, this in itself is not proof that it couldn’t have, it may only show our ignorance. And in the cases typically advanced, we have quickly discovered possible evolutionary pathways.
From an article on a Stanford lecture by Christian scientist Francis Collins:
Collins’ attack on Intelligent Design was one of the most thought provoking, calling it “interesting but ultimately flawed.” One of his main critiques was with the theory of “irreducible complexity,” which argues that cerain structures cannot have evolved piece by piece because a removal of any part of the structure causes the functioning of the entire structure to collapse. Implicit in the theory is the belief that such “irreducibly complex” systems could not have evolved sequentially but must have been created as a unit, a challenge to evolution. To counter this argument, Collins cited renowned proponent of intelligent design William Dembski’s example of the bacterial flagellum, which is made of a number of proteins; if one B2 protein is knocked out, the whole stops working. And yet, he claimed, evolution works in steps, and it is possible that each of the proteins in the flagellum is descended from a different form in other organisms.”
IC is an argument from ignorance plain and simple, and the examples put forward by IDC proponents have all failed dramatically. This was apparent to the judge in the Dover, PA ID trial, and the arguments are well articulated in the PBS special, Judgment Day; Intelligent Design on Trial
Catholic Ken Miller testified about IC at this trial, and you can find examples of his testimony at the above web site and on YouTube.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza:
Thanks for the tip about hemoglobin. In searching for more discussion I found this link. in brief, it ends in a challenge to Dawkins:
http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp
Once again I can sleep soundly tonight knowing that the Bible still explains reality best.
Report comment to moderator
#46: OK, thanks. This seems to be the argument: Irreducible complexity is a red herring because complex things didn’t have to start that way.
Taking the flagellum example, it’s true that the proteins may have pre-existed the flagellum, which only began flagellating with the addition of the last one (correct me if I’ve missed the point). However, there would be no selective advantage to the bacterium with the only the first protein, or only the second, or the first and second. However many proteins there are in a functioning flagellum, all but the last one represent wasted energy, which is anti-competitive.
Another common example is the retina. I understand that there are organisms with very rudimentary photosensitive organs. Still, the retinol/Vitamin A cycle requires several proteins to function in a particular series repeatedly. [I once memorized the whole sequence -- big, scary test]. There is a mimimum level of complexity required before the manufacture of any of the proteins is justified. Consider the odds of random mutations producing each of the proteins, include the odds that each (presently anti-competitive) mutation gets carried through enough generations for the species to pick up all of the mutations, and you get the probability that such a thing would ever occur. There would be an awful lot of zeros in that denominator.
IC doesn’t seem to be an argument from ignorance. The counter argument boils down to, “just because you can’t see how it might work doesn’t mean it can’t work.” This isn’t empirical science, it’s philosophy.
Report comment to moderator
StuBob at #38: Or even, allowing you to maintain your sanctimony:
Me: Let’s talk about intelligent design.
You: I’ve looked it over and found it lacking. I’ll admit that I’m predisposed against it, since ID requires a Creator, which I have a hard time swallowing from the outset.
Instead, we get:
Me: Let’s talk about intelligent design.
You: Shut up. You’re stupid.
Hmmm …
In the first place, I’ve not said anyone is stupid. I think some of you are not well informed and getting your information from unreliable sources, but that’s hardly the same thing.
But I’ll let you in on a secret .. well it actually isn’t a secret because I’ve been saying it all along in my time here, but people don’t seems to notice … I DO believe in a Creator. And I DO see evidence of Design in nature.
So why do I oppose the ID movement? For all the reasons I’ve been saying: As it stands, as presented by Behe, Johnson and Dembski, and now Mathis and Stein, it’s bad science and bad theology.
Report comment to moderator
Hmmm…makes me wonder what “good” theology is as associated with evolution.
Report comment to moderator
Grey Archer: I assume you are referring to my comment: As it stands, as presented by Behe, Johnson and Dembski, and now Mathis and Stein, it’s bad science and bad theology.
This point has been explained several times by several people in several threads, but we’ll give it one more go.
If the evidence of ID is in Behe’s irreducibly complex systems, it is a god-of-the-gaps approach. That is, “this cannot be explained naturally, so the answer must be intelligent design.”
The first and most obvious with this is, as soon as the system can be explained naturally, the gap closes and you have one less place for God (and a weakening of your credibility regarding whatever other places still exist.)
The more important, but less obvious, problem is that if you actually could ever demonstrate scientifically the blood clotting cascade, say, or the bacterial flagellum, really is the product of intelligent design, then you have turned God from the supernatural creator of the universe into just another natural phenomenon. You have made his supernatural intervention measureable, predictable and, therefore, natural.
For those reasons, wise people of faith should stay far away from the ID movement.
Report comment to moderator
Stubob: Taking the flagellum example, it’s true that the proteins may have pre-existed the flagellum, which only began flagellating with the addition of the last one (correct me if I’ve missed the point). However, there would be no selective advantage to the bacterium with the only the first protein, or only the second, or the first and second. However many proteins there are in a functioning flagellum, all but the last one represent wasted energy, which is anti-competitive.
No – there would be selective advantage all along the way, but for something other than locomotion. The proteins in the flagellum are all homologous for proteins that do other things in the cell! This is exaptation – a feature of evolution that is completely overlooked by Behe.
Part of the question here, though, is – where does the burden of proof lie? If you are saying that a structure is impossible, ergo God did it (which is a non sequitur in any case), then the burden of proof lies with you to prove it is impossible; you must show that there are no or improbably few ways to get there. This requires you to consider every possible combination of steps, including ones that made something more complicated and then simplified! Otherwise you are guilty of promoting an incomplete negative generalization. The burden doesn’t lie with the evolutionary biologist to show an exact account of every historical step, especially since there are undoubtedly multiple ways to arrive at the result! This is a fallacy Dembski repeats continually.
Now IDC does NOT predict that the proteins in the flagellum would be homologous to other proteins with other functions. But they are! Evolution does predict this; ergo the observation favors evolution and argues against IDC.
The flagellum is an example of a “puzzle” for a theory to solve, not an element of the theory itself. An analogy would be – How can Newton’s theory of gravity be used to account for Triton’s orbit around Neptune? Well besides the theory, there are a lot of initial conditions that are unknown – a satisfactory answer would find some set of plausible initial conditions that, under gravity, would lead to the result. But in fact, these may not be the exact initial conditions – especially if there are multiple ways to arrive at the same result.
Report comment to moderator
there would be selective advantage all along the way, but for something other than locomotion.
If this is demonstrable, I don’t have a pro-irreducible complexity counter. Is it demonstrable? It’s a bit hard to swallow from a statistical standpoint. Think about it — not only is this mutation beneficial to this organism today but, when combined with other presently-beneficial mutations, it will result in a fully functional flagellum, even though none of the present benefits have to do with locomotion.
Report comment to moderator
Stubob,
It indeed is demonstrable that reduced parts of the flagellum are functional. See this link
The other statement that I think needs clarification is Peeter Leavitt who characterizes Spinoza as a “Darwinian ideolog to enlighten ignorant believers on the overarching truth of natural selection by random variation as a substitute for Creation.”
I can’t presume to speak for Spinoza, but I’m of the camp that can happily reconcile evolution and belief in God. I believe in “the overarching truth of natural selection by random variation as the mechanism of Creation.”
In other words, God, by allowing us to discover evolution, lets us see “how He done it.” I find both the mechanism itself, and the fact that He allows us to discover and understand it for ourselves, frankly, awe-inspiring.
Report comment to moderator
53/54 – I certainly have nothing to add to Thomas’s link (Ken Miller on the flagellum), but I would like to respond to the question – “Is this demonstrable?”
The implication here is that, unless we have solved every puzzle about biochemical origins, evolution is just a wild guess. I would argue against this. If I might return to the Neptune/Triton example in 52 – A good theoretical calculation that showed a plausible capture origin for Triton appeared about the time of the Voyager/Neptune encounter in 1989. Would it have made any sense before that to say that the theory of gravity was in “trouble” because it “couldn’t account” for Triton, or that the theory of Gravity had a “gap” by which you meant this particular unsolved puzzle? Could you claim that gravity’s “inability to account for Triton” was evidence of “intelligent design?” Could you call this claim a “scientific theory” of design? If so, what kind of research program would such a theory imply? Do you have a mechanism of design that you can use to explain Triton’s orbit? No, of course not. The Triton puzzle depends not only on gravity, but on initial conditions we don’t know, so it is not a flaw in gravity that causes our earlier ignorance, it’s just ignorance of initial conditions. Meanwhile, gravity has solved thousands of other puzzles with no problem, so we remain pretty confident in its power.
The IDC arguments for intelligent design and against evolution are exactly analogous to the above.
Report comment to moderator
54 – “Darwinian ideolog to enlighten ignorant believers on the overarching truth of natural selection by random variation as a substitute for Creation.”
I think I clarified in #45 that this is not even a remote approximation to my views!
Report comment to moderator
#47 Do you really understand what Royal Truman is saying or are you just reassured by a lot of techno-speak? If so, please summarize what you think are the key points – Truman is very long-winded!!
Truman adopts the creationist-only “Gitt” definition of information and coding that require an intelligent agency, so the whole article is a big tautology. See here for a rebuttal of “Gitt” information:
Information Theory and Creationism: Werner Gitt
In sum:
“By asserting that data must have an intelligent source to be considered information, and by assuming genomic sequences are information fitting that definition, Gitt defines into existence an intelligent source for the genome without going to the trouble of checking whether one was actually there. This is circular reasoning.”
No wonder the main points of this article have never been accepted for publication in a professional science journal!
Once again I can sleep soundly tonight knowing that the Bible still explains reality best.
That’s funny – I’ve read the Bible cover-to-cover about 4-5 times, and I don’t remember any discussion of genetics, DNA, information theory, or gene duplication. Could you please point me to the salient verses?
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza said:
You must of have missed these verses then:
Report comment to moderator
It indeed is demonstrable that reduced parts of the flagellum are functional.
Interesting link. By my count, however, the Type-III Secretory Apparatus still has some 10 individual proteins. Why would an organism produce the first 9 before the 10th mutation occured?
Report comment to moderator
#58 Those verses say nothing about information theory, genetics, DNA, or gene duplication. If you interpret them that way, you are making things up!
Report comment to moderator
#58 “Why would an organism produce the first 9 before the 10th mutation occured?”
Good question for evolutionary biologists to answer – not a proof of a designer by any means. See #55
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza said:
Seeds are how GENETIC INFORMATION is DUPLICATED from the parent to the progeny. The GENETIC INFORMATION is ENCODED in DNA. The DNA CODE is comprised of four LETTERS. When DECODED and expressed, it forms a DUPLICATE of what was originally created. GOD says He wrote that code and He SUSTAINS that code. In other words, the DNA code which God wrote into the very first kind is God’s Word.
The rest of the Bible talks about how God hates it when His creation mutates His Word. It also spells out a solution He has provided for those creatures who are seeking forgiveness so that they can avoid His wrath by trusting in His Word, rather than man’s word.
Report comment to moderator
GOD says He wrote that code and He SUSTAINS that code.
Well he doesn’t say that in the Bible – you made that up. The original authors of the Bible weren’t writing about DNA; they didn’t even know it existed.
You have added your own interpretations, suggesting a lack of respect for the original text.
Report comment to moderator
Sponoza said:
I didn’t make it up anymore than what you made up when you read through the Bible 4-5 times. We both received God’s word just as a cell starts with a single strand of DNA. It’s up to us to complete the replication to make it a double strand without errors. If we add to or subtract from, we have a problem. You seem to have the equivalent of spiritual Downs syndrome. You’ve added too much to what God said. When I read Genesis 1:11 where God said:
“Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. I say amen! You say: “that’s a lie”
If you would like to be healed from your spiritual sickness, try rereading the following verse and trusting in it being written by God just to you.
Report comment to moderator
#64 AWSTAR, you haven’t “replicated” the Bible “without errors,” you’ve added to it something it does not say – namely that there is something called “information” in the genetic code that can not be added to by God’s natural laws. Then you justify this non sequitur with your own subjective sense of “divine guidance” and imagine that James 1:5-8 supports such a delusion.
Thus are cults and various sectarian versions of Christianity born, with each firmly convinced they have the sole version of Truth.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!