True to their word, the DI staff has begun their rebuttal to Gishlick et al.’s PT critique of Meyer’s 2004 paper in PBSW. The DI reply is entitled “Neo-Darwinism’s Unsolved Problem of the Origin of Morphological Novelty.” For a history and (almost) comprehensive links, see The “Meyer 2004” Medley.
Rather than responding in this initial post, let me recommend a strategy for those of us that might wish to make a few counterpoints to the DI (after you’ve finished repairing your irony meters). Folks may follow these recommendations or not as this is something of an experiment.
If you are itching to comment on a particular point on the DI page, then give your comment a title (using bold tags: [bold]text[/bold] with “b” instead of “bold”) indicating what it is about. Then continue with your comment on that topic. If you comment on another topic, give it another title.
If you comment on the DI piece elsewhere (e.g., another PT post or an online forum), please add a link or carbon copy the text into the comments on this page.
The idea behind this is that rather than just have the usual disorganized commenting free-for-all, the comments page will be semi-organized so that people can find various topics and see which ones have been addressed, and which not. If a fair number of people do this, we will end up with a point-by-point critique (that might end up as e.g. a talkorigins FAQ) much faster than one person can write something. I’ll post an example in the comments to start it off.
Like I said, this is an experiment, but hey, this is the blogosphere, right?
Unclear on the Concept 2
The semi-anonymous “Fellows of the Center for Science and Culture” do seem to have a problem with the concept of science.
In their “rebuttal” piece they write
To paraphrase The Princess Bride; “That word, it doesn’t mean what you think it means.”
The hypothetico-deductive method is one of the core scientific methods (see Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery). Ganfornina and Sánchez have just said they are going to study co-option scientifically, the exact opposite of what FOTCFSAC claim.
If FOTCFSAC don’t understand a core part of science, then why should we give any of their critique any credibility at all?
Ian, you need to provide the context of Ganfornina and Sánchez’s statement. They mean exactly what the DI quotes them to be saying, namely, ‘we [G & S] are going to assume common descent via natural causes (e.g., cooption) and will see what follows from that.’ G & S explicitly contrast their approach (i.e., method) with experimental approaches.
Here’s the context:
Maria D. Ganfornina and Diego Sánchez, “Generation of evolutionary novelty by functional shift,” BioEssays 21 (1999):432-439; p. 438.
The DI said the hypothetico-deductive method was “legitimate,” not unscientific. But when one is questioning whether a biological pattern was produced by descent via natural causes (as Meyer 2004 asked), one is not answered by citing a paper that assumes the truth of the very theory at issue.
Paul, far from me to go head-to-head with a philosopher of science about this, but it seems to me that G&S are clearly not saying, as claimed by FOTDICF(R)S&C, that “evolution by natural causes is assumed to be true, and inferences are then drawn from that assumption”. Rather, they are saying - true to the hypothetical-deductive method - that if evolution by natural selection etc. is true (hypothesis), then certain empirically verifiable predictions must hold (deduction).
Furthermore, it is also patently not true that
On the contrary, the hypothetico-deductive method, by “working out the logical implications” of a hypothesis, goes to the core of its falsifiability.
That’s a good idea, and I hope it’s successful.
Assuming that something is true, drawing inferences from the assumption, and then testing those inferences, is a core idea of science. An assumption, as it is being used by Ganfornina and Sanchez, is an hypothesis, which is the starting point of scientific investigation.
As with many words in this debate over ID (including the word “debate” - see here), there are two meaning of assumption being confused here (or less charitably, deliberately conflated.)
The first is the way I am describing here: a statement tentatively accepted as true in order to deduce testable inferences – “hence “hypothetico-deductive.” This is the scientific meaning of the word.
The second is the way the FOTCFSAC (pronounced “fotz-sack,” with a silent “p” in the middle?) are using the word: as a postulate which is assumed to be self-evidently true and from which, then, other statements can be declared also true. This is more the mathematical meaning of the word.
In his talks at various conferences (such as Design, Darwin and Democracy V in New Mexico recently), Paul Nelson commonly makes the argument that he does here:
But common descent is a testable, and tested, assumption. It is not a dogmatically held postulate, as the IDists insist, but rather a conclusion the scientific world has come to after decades of investigation. Alternative assumptions about other means by which species might have come into existence have also been on the table for testing. In fact, special creation was the assumption (and for many remain a postulate) as scientists started exploring evolution, and scientists at this point have decided that the evidence supports common descent and not some form of biological discontinuity between species.
(My browser wouldn’t post this last night, but I too picked up on the hypothetico-deductive weirdness. So here are some comments following my proposed example.)
The Hypothetico-deductive method and cooption
In one of the many jaw-dropping statements contained in the DI staff’s reply to Meyer’s Hopeless monster, they write,
In a remarkably Wellsian fashion, here several subtle slants are imposed on the truth at once and mixed together into a toxic brew. These slants are:
In order,
Furthermore, Meyer and his colleagues consistently ignore just how the hypothetico-deductive method can work with an evolutionary explanation such as cooption. For example, John Maynard Smith wrote in his book The Theory of Evolution (3rd edition 1993, and this passage probably occurs in the 1958 1st edition),
This was written long before any of the feathered dinosaurs were found. But in the late 1990’s a vertiable bestiary of nonflying, but feathered, dinosaurs have been discovered in China. Just last week a new article reported the discovery of protofeathers on a basal tyrannosaurid. Apart from the broad prediction that flying feathers were preceded by nonflying feathers, feathers on tyrannosaurids were specifically predicted based on their phylogenetic position.
Unfortunately, this post shows that a paragraph of ID spin can take about a page to unravel. It is worth responding to at least the major claims, however it is much better for readers to look up the original papers themselves. Usually the pdfs are available on the web (follow the PubMed links) and/or through university subscriptions, and if you can’t get access via those routes you can often email the author who cited the paper for a copy.
Reference
Ganfornina MD, Sanchez D. (1999) “Generation of evolutionary novelty by functional shift.” Bioessays. 21(5):432-9. URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/[…]ids=10376014
“When the truth or falsity of the theory itself is the issue, as it is here, working out its logical implications is a largely irrelevant exercise.”
ZOMGWTFBBQ.
Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable.
So when Behe says that it is a logical implication of evolution that IC structures cannot exist, and when Dembski says that it is a logical implication of evolution that biological structures will not exhibit CSI, and when Johnson, Wells, and Meyer say that it is a logical implication of evolution that the Cambrian Explosion cannot have occurred, this is all “a largely irrelevant exercise”?
Do creationists *ever* stop to think about what their statements entail before they sling them out, or is “making evolutionists look bad at the moment” the sole motivator?
Some of commentators belong at NASA: The National Acronym Slingers Association.
Well, the FOTDICF(R)S&C started it, by referring to MOM as GME, but CTASOTPT and MOTMPDNCSE seem to have upped the ante. ;-)
That should have been MHM, not MOM.
The DI truth-squad piece says that ”…beneficial mutations affecting early development have never been observed.”
This statement is debatable, to say the least. One counterexample can be found here, in a paper from the 21 February 2002 issue of Nature, “Hox protein mutation and macroevolution of the insect body plan.”
Here’s the abstract: “A fascinating question in biology is how molecular changes in developmental pathways lead to macroevolutionary changes in morphology. Mutations in homeotic (Hox) genes have long been suggested as potential causes of morphological evolution, and there is abundant evidence that some changes in Hox expression patterns correlate with transitions in animal axial pattern. A major morphological transition in metazoans occurred about 400 million years ago, when six-legged insects diverged from crustacean-like arthropod ancestors with multiple limbs. In Drosophila melanogaster and other insects, the Ultrabithorax (Ubx) and abdominal A (AbdA, also abd-A) Hox proteins are expressed largely in the abdominal segments, where they can suppress thoracic leg development during embryogenesis. In a branchiopod crustacean, Ubx/AbdA proteins are expressed in both thorax and abdomen, including the limb primordia, but do not repress limbs. Previous studies led us to propose that gain and loss of transcriptional activation and repression functions in Hox proteins was a plausible mechanism to diversify morphology during animal evolution. Here we show that naturally selected alteration of the Ubx protein is linked to the evolutionary transition to hexapod limb pattern.”
The full paper is available on-line from this page.
A UC San Diego press release on the work appears here. This has some pretty pictures.
The Discovery Institute knows about this work, and has dismissed it. Jonathan Wells initially said “A research team headed by William McGinnis at the University of California at San Diego has reported discovering a DNA mutation that produces shrimp without hind legs.”
This comment appeared in a D.I. Press Release, long since scrubbed from the web. A copy was archived by the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club, and can be found here.
The NCSE responded, noting that “In a Discovery Institute press release dated Feb. 6, Jonathan Wells accuses three developmental biologists of making ‘exaggerated claims’ in a recent paper in Nature (advance online publication, Feb. 6, 2002). But it is Wells, in his zeal to criticize any research supporting evolution, whose claims are ‘exaggerated.’ One wonders whether he actually read the paper. For example, the press release states: ‘William McGinnis at the University of California at San Diego just reported discovering a DNA mutation that produces shrimp without hind legs.’ He did? If Wells has indeed read the paper, currently published on Nature’s website, then he should know that no shrimp were mutated in the production of the research. Further, no mutant shrimp were mentioned in a UCSD press release announcing the Nature paper, which is what Wells apparently relied upon for his critique. Wells appears obsessed by illusory shrimp when he asserts: ‘The mutation does not transform the embryo into anything like an insect, but only into a disabled shrimp.’ …”
Wells quickly responded, saying “In a press release issued by Discovery Institute on February 6, I stated that researchers at the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) had produced a mutant shrimp and exaggerated its significance to evolutionary biology. I was mistaken. No mutant shrimp were produced. Alan Gishlick of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) was quick to point this out, calling my statements ‘thinly disguised creationist pontifications.’ In fact, I made the mistake because I gave the UCSD researchers more credit than they deserved. Their actual results provide even less evidence for evolution than I was initially led to believe. …”
The bottom line, from the UCSD press release, is this: ”…the scientists showed how modifications in the Hox gene Ubx—which suppresses 100 percent of the limb development in the thoracic region of fruit flies, while its crustacean counterpart from Artemia only represses 15%—would have allowed the crustacean-like ancestors of Artemia, with limbs on every segment, to lose their hind legs and diverge 400 million years ago into the six-legged insects.”
Was there a mutation? Yes. The Ubx gene in insects is different from the corresponding gene in crustaceans.
Was the mutation in a developmental gene? Yes. Ubx is in the Hox cluster, and is clearly involved in developmental processes.
Was the mutation beneficial? Apparently so. Here in New Mexico, at least, we have TONS of six-legged insects.
Is the DI correct to claim “…beneficial mutations affecting early development have never been observed” ?
I don’t think so.
We can quibble about “early” if you like, but it’s plain that the development of LIMBS is a key part of embryonic growth.
Valentine and the origin of phyla
From the DI Staff (DIS)
I have recently bought Valentine’s book and the impression I get from reading it is quite a bit different.
Leave it up to DIS to appeal to the typical argument from ignorance, namely that neo-Darwinism cannot explain the origin of phyla based on Valentine’s observation that no satisfactory accounts exist or that underlying causes remain uncertain. Valentine’s extensive book counts over 500 pages in which he discusses in great depth the fossil evidence, and the genetic evidence all of which seem to support evolutionary theory. More importantly DIS presents no competing hypothesis of ID to explain the Cambrian phyla. Using the common DIS ‘logic’ one could thus conclude that this lack of ID hypotheses to explain the Cambrian Explosion should be duly noted and can be seen as evidence that ID cannot explain Cambrian phyla.
I am beginning to understand why the DIS refers to the authors of the Meyer critique as members of the Militant Darwinist organization. Ad hominems may be the only way to save Meyer’s paper from scientific embarassment.
Let’s ignore for a moment that this is stupid and wrong. I haven’t read Ganfornina and Sánchez’s article, but could it be that they were trying to study co-option? Not prove the truth of evolution? What scientists go around trying to prove evolution anymore? About as many as try to prove heliocentrism. If you were going to study perturbations in Mercury’s orbit, heliocentrism would rightfully be an assumption. G&S can’t be accused of assuming their conclusion, if ‘evolution is correct’ is not their conclusion.
Discussion with the DI is annoying because their views are apologetics (a word they avoid) not science. Please use the word “apologetics” when you refer to DI communications. Otherwise they’ll interpret your communication as legitimizing their “science”.
Misrepresenting Prum and Brush 2002
DI quotes Prum & Brush 2002 as saying that the “conceptual basis of functional theories of the origin is weak because these theories rest upon hypotheses about the function of an ancestral structure whose morphology is unknown,” (p. 267) and conclude that the authors “do not think that the origin of feathers can be explained by change-of-function.” This is supposedly in contrast to Gishlick et al. who “claim that change of function by co-option solves the problems with neo-Darwinism that Meyer described in his essay.”
But Prum & Brush were not saying co-option was unimportant in the derivation of feathers, but that as a matter of emperical investigation, one should start with morphology and from that, deduce function – not the other way around.
This reasonable methodological point has nothing to do with co-option having acted in the history of feathers or anything else.
Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 13, column 144, byte 534 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187
The central issue: Is there a need for a new causal theory
Meyer’s main question is:
As Gishlick et al and others have shown, Meyer has failed to show that 1) (neo)-Darwinian/evolutionary theory cannot explain the origination of biological form 2) ID provides for a new and specifically causal theory which explains the origination of biological form.
Limited view: genetic v epigenetic
If all Meyer argues that origin of body plans is not fully understood then his argument has little merrit other than to exemplify how ID relies on ignorance to draw its often hasty conclusion. If genes cannot generate this higher level information and structure, how does ID explain the origin of body plans? Is there information beyond that found in genes which is somehow relevant? What other variations does ID have in mind that would explain the origin of body plans?
A new ‘causal theory’? Nope, ID presents nothing relevant that could be construed as a causal theory, let alone a hypothesis.
Meyer does not seem to believe that genetics or epigenetics resolve the issue
Origin of information
If the argument is that evolutionary mechanisms cannot genereate information (another negative argument, contradicted by fact) then it should be once again noted that ID does not present ANY hypothesis to explain the origin of information.
Scientific resources to information/complexity and the genome
Evolution of complex information T. Schneider Nucleic Acids Res 28(14) 2000 2794-2799
Adami and biological complexity
The evolutionary origin of complex features. Lenski, R. E., C. Ofria, R. T. Pennock, and C. Adami. 2003. Nature 423:139-144
Steve and others: At issue was the fact that G&S was cited by GME as a paper that demonstrated that evolution can produce new morphologies, viz:
The point that the DI response makes is that G&S in their paper are assuming that evolution produces new morphologies - and indeed, are proposing future research to establish the validity of these assumptions:
Thus to say (as GME do) that this paper demonstrates that evolution produces new morphologies is false - because the paper actually assumes it.
So to me that looks like one point to DI. How about we lay that sidetrack to rest and look for a better one (to mix metaphors)?
The central issue: Is there a need for a new causal theory
If anyone’s got a new causal theory, let’s hear it. “Poof, there it is” is not causal.
PvM: Three of your four objections above are basically, “Well, ID hasn’t done any better.” This does not constitute sound argument, for more than one reason.
Firstly, this was a review paper - it was not its role to offer new propositions. And, in fact, given the opposition that it received (and continues to) from the evolutionist community even in its current form - even though the DI group are making a fair job of justifying the paper - I find it hard to believe that any paper that was more blatantly non-naturalist would have had any chance of publication in mainstream scientific journals.
Secondly, you can’t justify evolution on the basis that ID doesn’t seem to be proposing anything any better. That’s logically like saying, “Well, we accept that it was unlikely that he didn’t die of flu, but he didn’t die of smallpox either, so he must have died from flu.”
Also, the Meyer paper does mention areas of epigenetic information:
Your final objection is that
Unless you can deal with the objections raised by the DI staff, this final objection can’t stand, either.
“Well, … it was unlikely he died of flu, but he didn’t die of smallpox either, so he must have died from flu.” Sorry.
Prum and Brush: THE EVOLUTIONARY ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF FEATHERS
DIS claims that Prum and Brush argue against Neo-Darwinism, when in fact they are arguing against Neo-darwinian approaches to resolve the evolutionary history of the feather
The Quote Mine
The puzzle of feathers is unsolved, they argue, because of “conceptual problems faced by macroevolutionary biology.” (p. 262)
* Neo-Darwinism (their term) tries to dissolve all morphological novelties into a microevolutionary continuum from some earlier structure. But “genuine evolutionary novelties are distinct from simple microevolutionary changes in that they are qualitatively or categorically different from any antecedent… structure.” (p. 265)
Followed by
Are DIS arguing for a synthesis ala evo-devo? They are a bit late.…
“This failure reveals an inherent weakness of neo-Darwinian attempts to synthesize micro and macroevolution.” (p. 289)
Indeed, functional approaches are considered circular by Prum and Brush but they continue to present an independent hypothesis which they consequently use to support functional hypotheses
For Prum and Brush, change-of-function is an inherently weak approach: “The conceptual basis of functional theories of the origin is weak because these theories rest upon hypotheses about the function of an ancestral structure whose morphology is unknown.” (p. 267) Clearly, Prum and Brush do not think that the origin of feathers can be explained by change-of-function.
A misunderstanding of the argument. Prum and Brush argue that change of function has so far been a circular argument, their approach however resolves this complication. It’s not that they do not believe that change of function did not happen but rather that the neo-darwinian approach is unable to support such pathways.
It seems obvious that Prum et al are not objecting to change of function perse but are arguing that such evidence may be tricky to obtain.
Of course, Prum and Brush do go on to assert that natural selection was responsible for the origin of feathers. But they offer no evidence in support of this assertion, only a sketch of the kind of events that “must have” happened in order for feathers to have arisen.
So in other words Prum and Brush do propose a causal theory to explain the origin of feathers. That Prum et al refuse to speculate as to the details of selective pressures given the historical intractability should not be seen as a rejection of their ideas. Let’s compare Prum and Brush’s hypothesis with ID’s hypothesis… Oops I forgot, there is none. But let’s see what Brush et al really did:
A causal theory of origins of feathers
In other words Prum and Brush have formulated a hypothesis of feather evolution which is independent of phylogenetic and functional assumptions. The next step is to test the hypothesis. Of course ID has to object to such scientific approaches since it fails to have any testable hypotheses of its own.
Supporting evidence
Not bad…
even better…
And then
Functional Explanations Reconsidered
One functional hypothesis bites the dust
Another one survives
Selective advantages
Congruency
Functional theories again
Evolution of novelty and feathers
Duplications and alterations of processes
Duplication and divergence
Conclusions
In the light of the actual paper the comment:
seems particularly ironic.
THE EVOLUTIONARY ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF FEATHERS Prum and Brush, The Quarterly Review of Biology Volume 77, No. 3 September 2002
Shifting goalposts
versus
Note the subtle difference between ‘evolution cannot produce new morphologies’ versus ‘evolution produces new morphologies’
In other words, the DIS has changed the argument to a strawman arguing that GME stated that
arguing
(I) is irrelevant, that it is unresolved does not mean that neo-Darwinism cannot explain new forms and body plans or that a new causal theory is needed. What is needed is a synthesis between evolutionary theory and development (evo-devo) to unravel the evolutionary history. In their eagerness, DIS confuses the failure of Neo-Darwinism’s approaches with a failure of Neo-Darwinism (see for instance the feathers paper)
(II) is a strawman of the original claim by GME “Below is a small sampling of the kinds of papers that Meyer would have had to address in this field in order to even begin to make a case that evolution cannot produce new morphologies:”
(III) is irrelevant, as it seems to ignore those papers which do propose Neo-Darwinian/evolutionary explanations.
Of course none of the DIS’s objections really addresses the obvious lack of any causal theory of ID, let alone any ID relevant hypotheses.
But it is a sound argument. First of all there ARE explanations for the origin of novelty, etc. DIS seems to be arguing that these explanations are non-Neo-Darwinian, and even if we were to accept their misinterpretation of the statements made by scientists arguing that neo-Darwinian approaches failed not the theory itself, we have conclude that there do exist evolutionary explanations. As such, the typical ID approach of arguments from ignorance fail to support either the eliminative approach as well as the best explanation approach. The latter fails because ID has failed to present ANY ID releveant hypothesis for comparisson
If it were a review paper then it did miss some relevant papers in its review, focusing mainly on the negative argument. Compare Meyer’s so called review paper with Prum and Brush’s paper in “The Quarterly review of Biology”.
An unsupported assertion that seems to indicate a retreat. It’s those evil evolutionists who caused the what I see as a poor quality review paper in that it does NOT present a complete review.
I am glad you realize that ID’s approach is fallacious and no I am not arguing your strawman.
It is obvious that Meyer did NOT make his case that Darwinian/evolutionary theory cannot explain the origination of biological form. In fact, as I have shown, the DIS response serves to strengthen my conclusions since they are now spinning their own strawman.
And remember it was Meyer who asked “Is a new and specifically causal theory needed to explain the origination of biological form?”. Certainly he may think so but he fails to present any and does a poor job at arguing that a ‘new theory’ is needed, especially a new theory which is non-Darwinian.
Good lord, do you have any idea how ironic this statement is? Meyer’s entire argument comes down to this: “The accepted theory is that he died of the flu, but there are a few oddities that the flu theory can’t explain. Therefore, he died of smallpox. Even though we have no evidence that smallpox was present in this particular death, we’ve seen smallpox kill people before, so we know the smallpox theory is causally adequate.” I don’t think anyone needs to be a logician to see what’s wrong with this reasoning. One can take issue either with 1) the premise which states that the flu theory can’t explain the death, or 2) the illogical jump to the smallpox theory, the proclaimed evidence for which consists of nothing more than arguments against the flu theory. Clearly, both criticisms are sound.
Valentine and the origin of phyla (2)
From the DI Staff (DIS) (remember that they are arguing that origin of phyla etc is at odds with (Neo-)Darwinian theory:
From the Preface of “On the origin of Phyla”, Valentine 2004
Valentine and CSI
Unresolved issue
From the paper
Compare this with
Why did Meyer quote Valentine?
Did anyone hear about this? Not that I really care to go see it, because the Devil’s got me by the brain and I don’t ever think about the issue (or, maybe it’s because I just don’t want to waste my time)…
Evening on Mars Hill presents the satellite rebroadcast of “ The Case For a Creator”.
This very special event will explore the latest scientific evidence that refutes popularly accepted theories of naturalism and instead points to a world created by an intelligent designer.
The broadcast features the nationally recognized author, Lee Strobel, and the Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, Dr. Stephen C. Meyer.
Please plan on joining us tomorrow evening, Wednesday, October 13th, in the North Coast Calvary Chapel auditorium from 7-9 PM.
Blessings, Sheri Braun North Coast Calvary Chapel 7188 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, CA 92009 760.929.0029 Ext 124
Co-option hypothesis
I thought the argument was that neo-Darwinian theory cannot explain novelty, now the objection is that it is hypothetical. Does the DIS even understand the meaning of science?
True and Carroll on co-option
I wish I had the paper since this sounds like another wishful interpretation by DIS.
Where is that ID hypothesis again, you know this ‘new causal theory’? Or was it ‘casual’..
aCTa, Not only do we have a number of fossil specimens with feathers not cappable of flight we are, with every passing day, learning more and more about feathers at the cellular and molecular levels.
We’ve identified the gene, WNT, that causes feather, scales, hair, and other appendages forming from the epidermal epithelia layer. Scientist can cause scales on the feet of birds to be expressed as feathers. I.e. the genetic material responsible for growning scales is the same material for growing feathers. The difference is a slight change in how the genes are expressed. This all, not surprisingly, meshes well with NS, CD, RM, & GD. All ID can say is “The designer made the 2 genetic materials seperately and could not possibly allowed this to happen via NS, CD, RM, & GD” We might never know the cause of the mutation but we can reproduce the change and see the effects quite clearly.
Try reading Molecular Biology of Feather Morphogenesis: A Testable Model for Evo-Devo Research JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL ZOOLOGY (MOL DEV EVOL) 298B:109–122 (2003) to get a insight on the development and evolution of feathers.
Creationist Troll wrote:
Are there any more subtantive deconstructions of the DI’s paper responding to “Meyer’s Hopeless Monster”? Or are DI basically right in their challenges thus far?
Geez! How much more substantive do you want? If you’re waiting for the DIS to concede they’ve ever been wrong on this (or anything else, for that matter) it ain’t gonna happen.
I don’t have time to be posting night and day, so I’m going to just point out a couple of things and get back to some serious reading.
Having said that, while I agree with you that it is unclear–we just don’t know enough yet–if ALL the “information” needed for the avian feathers is there from the beginning–nonetheless, what is suggestive is that the feather continues to be a “tubular” structure, meaning that the germs, barbs, barbules, etc, are ALL “tubular” in nature. Of course, this would be needed for “flight.” Now in Aristotlean philosophy, the “final cause” is apparent ‘from the beginning.’ That is, no one starts out to build a house and ends up skating rink–the “goal” is present throughout. This is “suggested” by what Prum and Brush write–though not intended that way by them. I’m not going to press it any further than that.
Now, in a later post:
Now all of these animals are in the Genus “Equus”. Tell me, how did “one” species go from having 64 chromosomes (horses) to having 44 chromosomes (zebras)? Was it by “point mutations”?
Here’s what Stephen J. Gould has to say about “Equus” in Full House:
Maybe you can find a better chart.
I’m not an ID “enthusiast”, but I agree completely with Behe and irreducible complexity. And I agree with ID. And I think that ID will have the “best” final answer. And … I hope someone takes it seriously and that it becomes a way to learn more about life.
I don’t think you understand what he is saying. He’s saying that what we consider a “species”, he considers a “variety”, and what we consider a “variety”, he considers a “species.” It’s upside down “taxonomy.” This is not in accord with Mendelian genetics because it doesn’t jive with the Hardy-Weinberg Law of stasis. Alleles move around, but there’s a “conservation” law: alleles neither increase, nor decrease in a population from one generation to another. We know “varieties” are blends, and that the “true” species is not the variety. We know that rather well. After all, we still don’t have a “blue” rose. But Darwin saw it otherwise.
Now, it’s easy to read him quickly, and to correct his thinking as you go along; but his thinking is just plain wrong based on what we now know about genetics.
To buttress my point, notice that Darwin “firmly” argued AGAINST “infertility.” Infertility is an argument–per Darwin–that goes against his Theory. It is an argument against his theory because if, as naturalists of his day (and to this day) believed, “varieties” become “infertile,” then “varieties” can’t be the “progenitors” of “future species.” Likewise, “infertility” is something that is not “beneficial to the organism” (since, from Darwin’s point of view, “vigor” is the true sign of “true” species.) And, so, Darwin, with an argument that is really weak (but necessary for this theory to survive), says that, basically, “infertility” is an ‘illusion.’ It’s not really like that. We don’t know enough. There are these funny things that happen, and when we really study it, we’ll find that “infertility” is due to something else (for Darwin, it had something to do with “reproductive organs.”)
Does anyone today seriously say that “infertility” amongst “varieties” doesn’t exist?
Thanks, by the way, for the “deciphering.” I was familiar with all of them–once decoded–except for NFL. Now I’ve read something about it–a sentence or two, here or there, but will have to go see what Dembski means by that. Doesn’t he have a book coming out, or recently published, with that title? He gives you a headache when you read him!
By the way, I’m off the “boards/posts”, and onto some serious reading. Adieu.
Why are you using the common horse as the base line? Their common anscestor is where you need to go from and we can trace the changes that this line has undergone.
equids have gone through rapid chromosomal evolution during their speciation in the last 4 million years. Their common anscestor gave rise to more then the 5 existing species we see today but lets focus on them. The difference in chromosome count can occur through processes of fusion and duplication. You might not like the idea but thats about the difference between humans and chimps. Humans had 2 chromosome fuse where chimps did not. Chromosomal painting shows this picture clear as day.…if you don’t want to look at the picture thats fine but its still there. Back to the Equid line.
I’ll just pull one paper that goes into this .… there are more
Stephen J. Gould comments on this does not, in ANY way, conflict with evolution. Gould is just refering to PE. If you look at the horse development you can see different changes going on at the same time. Adaptations like changes in teeth to deal with eating tougher grasses in a new open terrian from the woodland areas they inhabited before. Along with this change in teeth other mutations occured and helped member survive longer thus breeding more such as longer legs and adaptation to the feet for faster running.
The chart I provide doesn’t contradict what Gould says. The “Bushieness” is there. The chart gets updated as new information come forth such as finding a fossil that date younger or older then the points that species was thought to lived. Cross breeding will also cause some interesting developments but I imagine you wouldn’t be happy until you had a chart showing every single equid that ever lived and their relationships to others.
If you look at the article you would read this.
So I’m left once agian wondering what you are reading in between the lines because the words are not actually in conflict. I love it when IDers try to use Gould as a scientist agianst evolution.
Yes and being homosexual is not beneficial to an organism when it comes to reproduction. So if tendancy to homosexuallity was a genetic trait you might think that it would kill itself out wouldn’t you. But many conservative Christians, and others, think it just some individual being perverse etc. Low and behold with genetic studies we’ve found a genes linked to homosexuality in men. How can this be! Surely they would not propergate that gene and thus it would die out. Well well further study shows the genes are passed down through the maternal line. I.e. if your a gay male it might be your moms fault. The genes seem to increase an individuals attraction to males. In women this is expressed via a hyper-heterosexuality. Studies show that mothers of gay men have on average 2.7 children compaired to the those without gay sons at 2.3 So we have a complex situation here where a genetic trait seems to be detrimental to a member but still survives just fine. Hmmm JUST what natural selection would predict when you get the whole picture.
This might be painful for you .… If you question your sexuality ask your mom if she’s a nympho. If she is there might be a genetic cause to your sexual confusion.
If a genetic trait is detrimental to an individual doesn’t mean that same trait doesn’t have a overall positive effect on the genetic line.
And IDers like Behe don’t claim to be creationist but when they belong to institutions that mandate you must take a literal interpretation of the scripture you can add 1 and 1 together and get 2
Until ID get an asnwer they can’t get a “best” final answer.
Pasquale, I’m still confused why you think companies like Genentech don’t believe in evolutionary biology. Genentech actively promotes these mainstream theories.
I understood that ID was *already* the best final answer. It is impervious to evidence, can’t be disproved, is most wonderfully flattering to those whose beliefs require it, and provides nothing tangible to be grasped by anyone doing potentially hostile research. Who could ask for more?
Pasquale said:
Done with that yet Pasquale?
Pasquale: I think a “mathematical argument” contra Darwin’s thinking can be constructed. So, give me some time, and I’ll get back to you.
There are delusions of grandeur in this view of life. Is it likely that after a century and a half of the some of the best minds in science thinking - hard - about it, you’re going to discover the mathematical argument that shows evolution impossible?
(Besides - Bill Dembski beat you to it!)
Russel: Shhhh!
I want to see what he comes up with.
Wait! I got it:
2 + 2 = evolution is a lie because I said so!
Sure 2+2=4. That’s micro-addition. But nobody has ever added a trillion objects to a trillion objects to get 2 trillion objects! Macro-addition is a damned lie. Look, there’s not enough time to add up a trillion objects because the universe is 6000 years old. 1 object per second, 3600 per hour, 28800 per workday, 7.5 million per year, equals 45 billion objects in 6000 years. So there’s just not enough time. Anyway, macro-addition is really a religion. And satanic. And christianity has the best math theories. And also christianity is science, not religion. Also they explain every result in math. Math teachers suppress this in their journals. That’s proof of censorship. They should Teach The Controversy.
Hardy-Weinberg law of stasis? What Darwin is arguing that the dominant species will show natural varation which generates sub-species or varieties, eventually these varieties may become separate species.
Pim, you’re simply “correcting” Darwin. (Which is natural since he takes a position that is so contrary to what we consider natural.) It’s quite clear that the “dominant” species you’re talking about is what Darwin considers a “variety.” This is seen only if you read him closely. But that is what he is saying. As to Hardy-Weinberg Law, that’s in standard population genetics books.
As I see it, in the end there will be an explanation. The most “sensible” one will be something along ID. However, since we will still be dealing with “gaps”, if one is so inclined, one might choose to cling to NS. All of this is ALREADY apparent in the discussion that took place about Prum and Brush’s article. And, if Paul Davies can explain “extremely highly conserved” junk-DNA as something sent from aliens, then what hope is there that there will ever be a consensus. The mind’s ability to rationalize, to think what it wants, is enormous.
And, the cute remarks about the “mathematical” demonstration: the “mathematical demonstration” had to do with the problem of “geneology”, of the “phylogenetic tree.” The purpose is to get away from the inherent “relativity” that, per force, accompanies such a discussion. It’s easier to talk about it in “quantitative” terms, rather than “qualitative” ones. As I’ve looked over the Origins of Species due to our discussion, I see more “nuance” in Darwin’s thinking than the first time. I still think his thinking is wrong-headed; but there are subtleties requiring time and thought to work through. (But, just in passing, in a “sketchy” sort of way, Darwin is convinced that “species” will “morphologically”, as we would say, endlessly move farther and farther apart. Is that what the Cambrian Explosion tells us? Not really. Therein lies the problem.) As my discussion above points out: people tend to believe what they want to believe.
In fact, per Paul Davies argument, I’ve now come to the realization that, for the first time in my life, I believe in ETs. Yes, I believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. I believe in the Saints. All of these, to the best of my thinking, are “out of this world.”
As is becoming abundantly clear to me, none of you know the difference between “Darwinism” and “neo-Darwinism.” That’s why you bridle at the use of the term “neo-Darwinism.” Historicaly, at the turn of the 20th century, Darwinism was as good as dead because of the criticisms, principally, of Bateson. Roughly, through the work of Fisher and Dobzhansky, Darwinism was “rescued.” The “rescue” was based on theories concerning “point-mutations.” Argue all you want about “chromosomal” this, and “chromosomal” that, but that’s not what “neo-Darwinsim” (and, by extension, “Darwinism”) hangs on. My argument concerning the difference of 20 chromosomes is devastating to “point-mutation”, as is the recent experiment wherein a million (or was it a billion) nucleotide bases were eliminated without harm to the organim, i.e., they reproduced normally.
I really must read. Ciao!
Sigh. ID, once the smoke and mirrors are factored out, is a simple definition: God did it. One can accept this definition or reject it for reasons of their own. But since it is not based on evidence, it cannot be either supported by or falsified using evidence. Evidence is not relevant to definitions. Definitions are right by definition. If the definition sounds sensible to you, then it will probably always sound sensible. But ID is not an “explanation” of anything. It is a statement of faith. You believe it or you do not.
As for there being an explanation “in the end”, the end is always with us. There is always a “best fit” explanation. As evidence accumulates, sometimes a different explanation (or an enhanced version) fits better. This process continues indefinitely; there is either no end, or the end is continuous with the process, however you want to look at it.
I’m always amused here, that some people make claims based on preference, and others attempt to show that reality as best we understand it fails to ratify those preferences. Claiming that life was intelligently designed by some anthropomorphized designer is like saying that blue is the prettiest of all colors. And like clockwork, we get genuine experts on the electromagnetic spectrum explaining (and perhaps the cones of the eye?) explaining color in full 4-part harmony. As though all this erudition could somehow overturn a preference for blue.
The long war between science and religion.
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/
Steve, I hope you are being facetious with the Andrew Dickson White link. White’s conflict thesis is widely acknowledged by modern historians of science to be simply wrong (see Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction, edited by Gary Ferngren, as a good place to start). White’s A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom helped to perpetuate many of the widespread myths about science and religion, like the idea that Columbus had to search far and wide for patrons free of the religious flat earth doctrine, as well as popular (but incorrect) ideas about the persecution of Galileo.
You can count on me not to provide 100-year-old analysis when modern scholarship is so much better. (And White wasn’t considered particularly insightful among academics even back then) When I link to something like that, it’s largely out of historical interest. I suppose I should have been more specific, and titled my post something like “An out of date look at the long, and very real, historical conflict between science and religion.” In the same way, I might link to something about Denis Gabor, or Mark Twain. But you can trust that I don’t mean to suggest that Alpha Centauri is really only 25 trillion miles away, as Twain believed. I like to see how ideas evolve. It’s less satisfying to get all your info from precise, modern, up-to-date textbooks. You miss seeing the brutal struggle with the blurry and contradictory facts on the ground.
Pasquale … why do you get biology advice from Davies…he’s a physicist. The closest he comes to biology is being a professor of natural philosophy at the Austrialian centre for Astrobiology
While he is good at explaining Cosmology, I still like Sir Martin Rees better, quotes from him like
is some what of a “Holier than thou” mentality.
When I want to talk about time loops etc I’ll talk to people like Davies and Penrose and Rees. When I want to talk about psychology I’ll talk to Pinker. When I want to talk about Biology I’ll talk to people like Dawkins and Goodwin. While I love how all of these men, and I don’t limit myself to listening to men, are big thinkers that are not scared to talk outside of their field of expertise.
Hmm Darwinism a theory of organic evolution saying new species arise from the process of natural selection Hmmm Neo-Darwinism a modern darwinian theory that explains new species in terms of genetic mutations.
Darwin didn’t know about genes. All neo-darwinism has done is identified the causes of mutations. It still relies on the process of natural selection to take hold. Darwin’s theory still holds true. It is just we can explain what changes in the organism causes the mutation.
Darwinism is a generally. If organism x has trait y and breeds alot its offspring will carry trait y on thus causing trait y to be more abundant in a population
Neo-Darwinism extends this to say “trait y” is cause by mutation of genetic code z.
the two do not conflict. What they both hang on is that a trait will be passed on if its carrier successfully breeds.
Its a SIMPLE concept that you seem not not grasp.
If you have a wife and you are white, she is white and both your families are white and she has a baby that is black…well its not your traits that that baby is carrying.
Take enough mutations to the genetic code and you have a new species. Since they don’t all happen at the same time, ie with a small number of generations, the species can continue to successfully breed. But with more changes adding up they have less and less viable offspring if they where to breed with the original species
Like I said if you travel 2 million years into the future you’d probably find that you would not be able to produce viable offspring with the humans of that time because of the accumulated difference in genetic code. Miss Smith born in 2,002,004 woiuld be just fine having sex with Mr Jones born in 2,002,004. They would still call themselves human. But now you have 2 humans that are of different species.
I think some unhelpful semantics that I tried to clear up way back is still here. What does neo - darwinism mean? Nothing in particular. The term has been around since the 1890’s I believe. The term is often used to contrast some portion of current evolutionary biology with the whole. Then one may triumphantly conclude “This portion is not the whole!” and make it sound impressive. No cigar from me. If your meaning is anything other than present evolutionary biology, without qualification, you are strawmaning.
Some here seem to think chromosomal evolution is newer than new, or something like that. I don’t quite get the point, but there was enough material for M J D White to write a book on it in the 60’s.
Flint still calls assumptions definitions, and says definitions are true by definition. Huh? By which definition? It is much healthier, not to mention correct, to say ‘assumption’ and ‘assumed to be true’ when these are what you mean. One important class of definition, the rule for usage of a new term using existing terms, is counted true by convention. Many other ‘definitions’ are descriptions, and are subject to being wrong in the ordinary way.
GWW, way back, displays atrocious manners toward Pasquale and ought to apologize. GW, surely you can restrain such outbursts. TIA.
Pete:
I’ll take a crack at this again. We may be close. I distinguish a definition from an assumption in a way that I consider essential. A definition is something true because we SAY it is true, and for no other reason. In my terminology, we define it as true. Perhaps a better word is an axiom; something taken as a given and not subject to question or investigation. An assumption as I conceptualize it is something subject to investigation and alteration. There can be false assumptions, there can NOT be false definitions. So assumptions can be corrected or improved; definitions can be accepted or rejected, depending on whether they are considered useful or not.
Perhaps your phrase “true by convention” matches my notion of a definition? So one adopts the convention or not. Conventions (definitions) lie outside the boundaries of observation, evidence, or investigation. They are arbitrary. The entire mindset behind Intelligent Design is conventional in this sense - life was designed because WE SAY it was designed. This claim is not subject to the scientific method or to the weight of evidence. ID was not derived from evidence in any way, and cannot be “disproved.”
A description is most emphatically not a definition, as I understand it. Descriptions are observations, the very antithesis of definitions. A definition becomes true because we have decided to define it as true. Definitions are circular by nature. What’s tricky (and I think confusing you, due to my inability to express myself well enough) is that SOME definitions sound like factual statements, subject to empirical methods. Indeed, two people can make identical statements, yet one is a definition and the other is a hypothesis. One way to tell the difference is to ask, “Under what hypothetical circumstances would you agree that you were wrong?” If the statement is a definition (a convention?), there are no such circumstances.
You mean when Pasquale lied through his rotten teeth and I busted him point blank? You think Pasquale is the type of person whose honest opinions can be compelled by “gentlemanly” behavior? If you want to play patty-cake with Pasquale and humor him, be my guest. Frankly, I find his intellect disgusting and it was that part of his body (his mind) which I was referring to in my earlier post (a tribute to the late great Frank Zappa who also knew better than to waste time trying to “edumcate” dissembling evangelicals).
Well, it has the advantage of being correct. Most of the definitions we encounter are dictionary definitions. These are inductively based claims about how words are used, and clearly may be mistaken.
What about definitions of concrete things? Establishing a concept of a thing and establishing (defining) a corresponding term is done at first by ostension - by pointing at several rock samples, for instance, and saying “This is flint” (and perhaps by pointing at other rocks and saying “This is not flint”). Since one can’t carry around samples of all the things one wants to talk about, verbal descriptions, called definitions in dictionaries and textbooks, are created. “Flint is of mineral”. There is no rule or convention that can prevent your textbook or dictionary from making an error.
How about mathematical definitions? This is where the ‘true by definition’ idea comes from. New terms are essentially abbreviations for longer expressions involving known terms. “By a triangle I mean a plain figure with three sides, each side being a straight line segment”. Later, if it is shown that some X is a plain figure with three sides, each side being a straight line segment, then X is a triangle by definition. The notion of ‘true by definition’ is misguided in other contexts.
In reality, Flint, I think you know all the above even though you haven’t been sounding like it.
Finally the troublesome category: terms that are used as if they point to real things, without the thing existing first or without any agreement about what the thing itself is. Two examples in this set of comments are ‘neodarwinism’ and ‘macroevolution’. These are just floating terms. It is not automatically bad to use them in a particular book or article provided one makes his own usage clear. But all to often people start positing implicitly or explicitly a definition of the term, then going on as if there exists an external thing that the term thus defined points to, and which has some great significance that a mere definition does not have.
I have mentioned neodarwinism earlier in this thread. ‘Macroevolution’ is another term that floats around and gets used this way and that way. What seems to be the best (most useful) usage in biology is, oversimplifying: macroevolution refers to the evolution of morphological characters. As I mentioned in some other topic where it came up, a very good place to learn about it is Levinton’s book _Genetics, Paleontology and Macroevolution_. But to get righteous about it, and argue that there is an actual thing to which the term refers, and any other usage is ‘wrong by definition’ is misguided. ‘Macroevolution’ doesn’t truly mean anything. It is just a term which is sometimes useful. And sometimes not.
Pete:
OK, It’s harder than it looks to straighten these things out. As I hope I’ve communicated, I’ve been talking about statements based on preference rather than evidence, which cannot be argued against on the basis of any amount of evidence, and which must be changed (if possible) only by appeal to a change in the preferences of whoever finds the statement useful.
And I hope also that I’ve communicated that people making the same statement can nonetheless have made it on entirely different bases - one because he prefers to believe it’s true, and the other because he considers it best supported by evidence. And so the statement’s validity can be altered (in the mind of who made it) in the first instance by changing someone’s preferences, and in the second instance by presenting new evidence or a new interpretation of existing evidence.
And so there is a qualitative difference between the two syntactically identical statements, depending on WHY those positions are adopted. “Macroevolution” to one person does not happen because his interpretation of religious doctrine tells him it does not happen. What it MEANS doesn’t really have much to do with the degree to which life forms have diverged from a common ancestor over time, etc. Instead, its meaning is more in the nature of a switch or litmus test – those who “believe in” macroevolution belong to the atheistic humanism religion (a false faith), those who know better are “true Christians.” Another way of putting it is, if someone regards their personal interpretation of scripture as Absolute Truth, and their visualization of reality cannot tolerate certain doubts, “macroevolution” becomes something in conflict with a commitment to a given interpretation of scripture, and which must therefore be rejected. In my shorthand, I think of them as having defined macroevolution as wrong.
Intelligent Design isn’t an explanation of the origin of anything, nor is it based on any kind of methodological exploration of the objective universe. It is a statement of preference. It becomes true in the minds of those who for some reason need it to be true, and will be considered unimpeachable until those needs change. Perhaps I’ve been using the wrong semantics in saying that such people define it as true? For them, it is true a priori.
I appreciate your feedback on this, because I consider it worth addressing. A great deal of effort is expended here attempting to correct statements which are wrong in fact, but true by preference for those who make them. And as we’ve all been seeing for a long time, no amount of factual correction changes strong preferences. Preferences are not based on facts.
Update