Michael Egnor Responds to Michael Lemonick at Time Online

NS + RV might be a better way of describing what Darwinists claim than NS + RM.

You would stop the sidetracking arguments that HGT and genetic drifts are not mutations.

From the comments section:
“As for Dr. Egnor, his quote suggests that he is not as familiar with evolutionary theory as one would hope/expect.”

Yeah great response - what a surprise. It seems to be the default/knee-jerk reaction of Internet Darwinists. Usually goes something like this: 1. Raise a valid question about NDE 2. You are accused of not understanding “evolution” 3. Ask question again 4. Hordes of Darwinists attack you, yet never answer original question. Par for course. Gee how difficult is it to understand? “RM + NS = everything” Yeah takes a real “brain surgeon” to understand that one.

tribune7, I appreciate your frustration with the darwinian sidetracking. Interestingly, genetic drift is nothing more than an accumulation of mutations. HGT is a slightly different story. In truth I wonder if the ubiquitous HGT isn’t just evidence of intelligent genetic engineering. However, the neo-Darwinian community clearly assumes that the genes that transfer do so for purely “randomness + selection” reasons.

There is an argument from the neo-Darwinian community that there actually is more to the theory than random mutation plus natural selection, but I haven’t found it. (BFast gets drowned out by the drone of “YOU OBVIOUSLY DON’T KNOW THE FIRST THING ABOUT EVOLUTION!“) However, I am happy to challenge any darwinist out there — Ph.D. or not, to show me any understood mechanism that is not merely a natural extension of the simple Random Mutation + Natural Selection tennet, or of a mechanism that was supposedly developed by the first. I believe that there is none. RM+NS explains it ALL!

“YOU OBVIOUSLY DON’T KNOW THE FIRST THING ABOUT EVOLUTION!“

That happens to you too?

Invoking a mysterious “intelligent designer” is tantamount to saying it’s magic.”
–Michael Lemonick

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

– Arthur C. Clarke

Just a clarification. Genetic drift has nothing to do with mutations and is thought to be more powerful than natural selection for influencing allele distribution in populations. Also natural selection operates on the current set of alleles as well and does not necessarily need random mutations to change the allele frequency of a population.
The definition of genetic drift from wikipedia

“In population genetics, genetic drift is the statistical effect that results from the influence that chance has on the success of alleles (variants of a gene). The effect may cause an allele and the biological trait that it confers to become more common or more rare over successive generations. Ultimately, the drift may either remove the allele from the gene pool or remove all other alleles. Whereas natural selection is the tendency of beneficial alleles to become more common over time (and detrimental ones less common), genetic drift is the fundamental tendency of any allele to vary randomly in frequency over time due to statistical variation alone, so long as it does not comprise all or none of the distribution.”

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

I heard someplace that brown eyes will become fixed in the human population over time by genetic drift. Though I do not have the actual reference for this.

Changes in alleles can arise from several sources, of which random mutations is just one, though it is the one made famous by Darwin (I think he called it spontaneous changes) and the original formulation of NDE in the 1920’s and 1930’s based on Morgan’s work with fruit flies. Most evolutionary biologists today don’t restrict themselves to RM + NS. What is taught in evolutionary biology courses as a source of new alleles includes much more than just random mutations. Natural selection has nothing to do with the origin of new alleles only how they might get fixed in a population.

What the evolutionary biology courses do not include is any intelligent input to the appearance of new alleles and they openly disparage the need to even consider it. Of course evolutionary biology really has no answer to the creation of new complex systems of alleles either by random mutation, HGT, gene duplication or any other natural mechanism which is why you get the nonsense by Lemonick in response to Egnor’s questions.

“The bottom line is that Neo-Darwinian Evolution proponents have no plausible theory of the generative, only a theory of garbage disposal. This is not hard.”

I remember when I used to hear how easy “evolution” was to understand, and how it didn’t make sense that more people didn’t accept it because it’s so easy to grasp. Then once ID became a real threat, the buzz phrase was “it’s hard to understand” which was why there was so much “confusion” about it among “common folk” (read, everyone who doesn’t buy into the creative power of the blind watchmaker). Egnor’s simple question is enough to illustrate the vacuity of Darwinism.

jerry,

Genetic drift has nothing to do with mutations and is thought to be more powerful than natural selection for influencing allele distribution in populations.

Sorry, I confused genetic drift with molecular clocks. In any case, genetic drift is nothing more than natural selection when natural selection doesn’t find anything particular to select for. The Modern Evolutionary Theory is NOTHING more THAN RM+NS!

The comments section is very illuminating as Dr. Egnor replies to and challenges Lemonick.

This reminds me of the Meyer-Ward debate. Egnor makes thoughtful comments on substantive issues while Lemonick invariably responds with non sequiturs and childish put-downs. Even if I wasn’t already ID-friendly I know who I would favor based on behavior alone.

bFast,

I believe geneticists think that natural selection and genetic drift are very different processes. In genetics they have calculation schemes for genetic drift that are based solely on random differences between generations on what alleles gets expressed that show that a random favoring of one allele can lead to its fixing in the population. It has nothing to do with an allele’s effect on the survival of offspring.

About a month ago when Larry Moran was featured for some of his more stupid comments, I went to his site and he said he was a “drifter” and favored it over natural selection. So they obviously think there are distinct differences.

I do not agree with your comment that “Modern Evolutionary Theory is NOTHING more THAN RM+NS!”. It is not what is taught in the university evolutionary biology courses though this is a common perception here. In begining biology courses they frequently do not go to far beyond Darwin’s original theory. But even advanced plalcement courses will include genetics and thus genetic drift as the main cause for fixing alleles.

Here is a comment by Behe on the process of evolutionary biology that Joseph provided:

“Intelligent design is a good explanation for a number of biochemical systems, but I should insert a word of caution. Intelligent design theory has to be seen in context: it does not try to explain everything. We live in a complex world where lots of different things can happen. When deciding how various rocks came to be shaped the way they are a geologist might consider a whole range of factors: rain, wind, the movement of glaciers, the activity of moss and lichens, volcanic action, nuclear explosions, asteroid impact, or the hand of a sculptor. The shape of one rock might have been determined primarily by one mechanism, the shape of another rock by another mechanism.

Similarly, evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects (effects that may be due to the limited number of organisms that begin a new species), genetic drift (spread of “neutral,” nonselective mutations), gene flow (the incorporation of genes into a population from a separate population), linkage (occurrence of two genes on the same chromosome), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important.–Dr. Behe”

So evolutionary biology is a lot more than RM which is just one source of new alleles and NS which is just one process which affects changes in allele frequecy in a population.

At present evolutionary biology does not include anything from ID which it should because as Dr. Egnor says, all these mechanisms of allele creation cannot explain the formation of the incredible information in biological systems.

This last point is the sole point of ID’s dispute with evolutionary biology. We do not dispute natural selection, just that natural selection rarely ever has anything but trivial stuff on which it can have an effect.

Wow. That is one angry journalist.

Michael Egnor managed to keep himself calm and reasonable the entire time, and Lemonick was reduced to talking points. I always get a bit weirded out when people get that passionate over simply questioning what’s supposed to be a popular, but nevertheless purely scientific theory. It’s not as if Lemonick is on the side that’s being censored in the, as he puts it, tiny minority.

bFast:

“The Modern Evolutionary Theory is NOTHING more THAN RM+NS!”

You are absolutely right! I understand what jerry is saying, but still bFast statement is perfectly true. That’s why:

1) Maybe RM is not the only source of variation, if you restrict the term to single nucleotide polymorphisms. But if we accept tribune7’s correction, just to avoid ambiguity, and speak of Random Variation, that can include everything: SNP, deletions, inversions, duplications, genetic drift (HGT is another story). The key word here is “random”. Any known variation of genetic material, except possible intelligent interventions (such as those that genetic engineers daily accomplish) is by definition random.
2) What is the matter with genetic drift? It is a process which certainly exists, and so? It can only fix some existing allele in a random way! It cannot generate new information (such as a new sequence or protein), and it cannot select anything on a functional basis. Therefore, it cannot add anything to random chance, and therefore anything more specifically complex than the Dembski limit of 1 to 10^150 can never come into existence by genetic drift, or by any combination of random variation. If there is something which I can’t see in the genetic drift theory, please someone explain it to me!
2) Deletions, inversions, duplications, are kust variant froms of random mutation. hey cannot do anything different than random mutation in the form of SNP. I agree, the “variation” created by a deletion or duplication is different in form from the variation created by a SNP, but they are anyway random events. Do you think that he chance of a monkey randomly producing Shakespeare’s works on a keybord may be increased if you add a key which, instead of typing a new character, just “moves” randomly a set of alredy written characters to another point? I think that the equivalence of all random manipolations should be easy to demonstrate mathematically, although I cannot do that.
3) HGT is another story. That is a powerful instrument which allows to reutilize existing code in different organisms, and is tha main cause of the only well documented adaptive variation in nature: antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Well, but it is a reutilization of “existing” code. It has no ability to create new information, only to use what alredy is there for the purpose for ehich it has always been there, only in different bacteria. And where it is a cause of variation (for instance for the different possible integrations of a new gene in the genetic material of the host), there its variation effect is, again, random.
4) So, what are we left with, to “explain” information? Natural selection, I am afraid. What a pity that it does not work! But pretending that there are other explanations, which have never existed, will not improve the chances…

gpuccio,

Thank you for your explanation. It will help us separate out the various arguments made by the evolutionary biologists and focus on what is right and what is wrong.

He hasn’t published my comment yet.

I basically said that ID is NOT anti-evolution. Rather if anything ID could be considered to be anti-the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over the evolutionary process(es).

Then I talked about sheer dumb luck and its implications for science. (sheer dumb luck being the materialistic anti-ID position)

I also said that we exist and there is only ONE reality behind that existence. And to disallow ID just because is an injustice to science and mankind.

Regarding this funny guy, Michael Lemonick, I think he has found the perfect way to answer all questions without risking to be found wrong. Here are a few examples, from his “comments” in that blog:

“Maybe so, maybe not.”

“As for your other points, I’ll give you credit for one thing: you take them very seriously”

“So you and a tiny band of others keep saying.”

“Or so you believe.”

Wonderful! No wonder darwinists are not falsifiable! I am afraid all of these statements are (not very brilliant) variations of the classical semantic way to be always right: just answer, to anybody, whatever he is saying: “That’s what you are saying”.

But, seriously, my most heartfelt admiration goes to Michael Egnor for his infinite patience, fairness, precision, and scientific openness. If that is the difference between an IDer and a darwinist, we have strong moral reasons, beyond the scientific ones, to stay where we are in this specific “culture war”.

Jerry:

I do not agree with your comment that “Modern Evolutionary Theory is NOTHING more THAN RM+NS!”. It is not what is taught in the university evolutionary biology courses though this is a common perception here.

I agree with you that this is not what is taught in biology courses. I also agree that it is a common perception here. Further, this “common perception here” is at the heart of the “your problem is that you don’t understand the theory of evolution”tyrade.

It is for this reason that I dare to prove that RM+NS=MET is valid and complete.

Consider, for instance, genetic drift. I contend that genetic drift is not a mechanism at all, but a phenomenon. Let me distinguish the two. In physics we have a number of mechanisms, two of which are inertia and gravity. If all other forces are ignored, such as friction, and if a small object is passed close to a very large object, the small object — due to these two forces alone — enters into orbit around the large one. Orbit is a phenomenon. The eliptical shape of the orbit is a phenomenon. It is not, in itself acting on the objects, it is only observed and described.

Genetic drift is a phenomenon. When selective pressure is reduced to zero, genetic drift must, ipso facto, happen. Now, that said, there are clearly currents within the genetic ocean upon which an allele frequency is drifting. For instance, brown eyes are genetically associated with darker skinned people. If the human population is selecting for a darker complexion by natural selection, then the current of this selection will migrate the color of the human eye towards brown. As such, we see that the current that underpins genetic drift is none other than our good friend natural selection.

All of the other phenomena that you mention are intriguing discoveries of the intricacies of RM+NS at work. It is not that I am unaware of these phenomena (though I am not professionally versed) nor that I do not find them intriguing. It is merely that they are the natural, though not always obvious, effects of RM+NS.

Even HGT, if I understand, is explained within MET on purely RM+NS terms. I understand that there may be some component of a secondary mechanism — seems that viruses may play an active role in HGT. In any case, according to MET, any such mechanism is a mechanism that came about as a product of RM+NS.

Joseph

ID is NOT anti-evolution. Rather if anything ID could be considered to be anti-the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over the evolutionary process(es).

I wholeheartedly agree. I fully support common descent. I recognize that HGT puts a wrinkle in “common descent”, but HGT notwithstanding, common descent is the best explanation I can find for how life developed on earth.

As for where natural selection fits into the puzzle of life, I think that most IDers would agree with me that NS has a potend preserving power. Natural Selection is clearly a primary mechanism for sustaining and balancing the ecosystem. I think that most IDers would agree with me also, however, that RM is pretty much just destructive; that assuming that RM did it (filtered through NS) is really, well, asinine.

“assuming that RM did it (filtered through NS) is really, well, asinine.”

This statement on my part is a bit strong. Let me just clarify it a bit. “assuming that RM did it (filtered through NS) is really, well, asinine.” Ie, if it is true that RM, filtered through NS is actually capable of doing what is claimed, the burden of proof is certainly squarely on the sholders of science to prove it — at least to prove that RM+NS is a sufficiently potent combination that it could have pulled it off. So far the best case I have seen for RM+NS is, well, it’s the only theory that fits the philosophy.

bFast,

I do not disagree with a lot of what you are saying. My objection is that we are doing a very poor job of communicating ID to the world. And one of the things contributing to this poor job is that there is not a consistent and scientifically oriented message.

We often make broad and vague attacks on evolutionary science and I am suggesting that we not do that and concentrate on what is actually vulnerable. One way to do this is to accept what is valid in evolutionary science, which is a fair amount, and focus on the actual differences.

I maintain the only actual difference between ID and current evolutionary science is how new alleles are/were created and this is it. Nothing else.

We do not disagree with natural selection, genetic drift, random mutations or as been suggested random variations from whatever source. We do not disagree that traditional Darwinism works in some cases. What we do disagree with, is that there is any source of naturally occurring phenomena that can explain the complexity of allele generation over time. It is here and here alone we should make our case.

Many evolutionary biologists think traditional Darwinism is passé. For example, the papers of Woese and Schwartz and Alan MacNeil’s admission a few months ago all say that traditional Darwinism is dead. Read Larry Moran’s blog and he makes the same point over and over.

So when we celebrate here the papers of Woese, Schwartz or MacNeil’s admission we are being foolish because we are really no closer to our objectives than before and actually look dumb because these papers/admissions are just examples of more naturalistic ideology. All these people have contempt for ID and one of the reasons why is that we fail to understand the valid science that is out there. And they are right.

So persisting in demonizing RM + NS looks silly because it is a correct process. Nearly everyone agrees micro evolution works in a lot of cases and part of micro evolution is RM + NS. But it only correct for limited examples and this is the case we should make. Also since NS can always apply, when ever we denigrate NS we are actually wrong and look foolish. The issue is not that NS doesn’t work but that it rarely or maybe never has anything but trivial positive allele changes to work with.

So call it a tirade. I find the process of thinking this out a great learning process and look forward to critiques. But I fail to see how when we are mistaken we are advancing anything.

It is encouraging to see that several of you are becoming more familiar with population genetics. That should elevate the level of discussion a bit. I only wish I were knowledgeable enough in information theory to address what is your core claim, that RM+NS can not increase the information in a system in a nontrivial way. I have heard others, more knowledgeable than myself, say that information–at least as Shannon defined it–can readily be increased via noise. I do not, however, recall what formal concept of information/complexity you all are operating under, so I’ll leave it at that. Biological evidence arguing against this basic premise (i.e. no complexity via RM+NS) are cases of gene duplication followed by diversification, yielding new functionality. Also there are cases where modest modifications in enzymes yielded new functionality (e.g. leaf digestion in leaf-eater monkeys). These seem easily enough achievable through RM+NS. But note how in each case, it is only possible b/c that novel function was “there” close by in the potential fitness landscape, just a few mutational “clicks” away. I’ve been around long enough to know that none of this is going to convince anyone, particularly without a strong theoretical model demonstrating information/complexity accumulation under (RM + drift)+NS. In my mind, as I’ve indicated here before, the main sticking point for such a model is the shape of the adaptive landscape itself. It is no-doubt a high-dimensional space whose form we only have the vaguest hints of (physics, for instance, sets some basic constraints on terrestrial organisms’ possible weights). If that landscape shape is such that viable “solutions” are ubiquitous, then the plausibility of evolution via RM+NS would be much higher. In other words, it wouldn’t matter which direction you’re wandering via mutation, there’s very frequently a selective or neutral avenue to a viable fitness peak within this rich adaptive landscape. While the formation of complexity via RM+NS appears to be a very tall order, even to myself, I don’t know how to evaluate just how tall it is without understanding that fitness landscape more thoroughly. Until then, the fact that all the basic naturalistic/materialistic components are there (mutation, drift, selection) to create–however terribly unlikely–the complexity of life without intervention, scientists will not “unnecessarily propagate the number of entities” by invoking another entity, the designer, as having intervened in the process. That is why we feel the burden of demonstration falls on those who claim biological complexity is impossible without intervention. We see all the “pieces” and “mechanisms” are present naturally, and just what the likelihood of these parts/mechanisms actually *accomplishing* this complex feat in an undirected manner is, in my mind, altogether unknown given limited understanding of the fitness landscape.

jerry:

I appreciate your good intentions, but I would like to illustrate better a few points.
As far as I know, ID sources have always been extremely clear in specifying that RM and NS may work in fixing some traits or explaining microevolution. If you read all the ID material (especially Behe and Dembski, which are the pillars of ID thought) you will find no ambiguity there. The critics of ID are only for the theory which attributes macroevolution (and therefore the generation of new information, of complex specified information and irreducibly complex information) to blind evolution, that is to RM + NS. But that’s exactly the important point. That’s the point about which darwinists have started, in the last few years, a real witch hunt, an unbearable intellectual persecution which is absolutely intolerant and irrational, whose purpose is explicitly to discredit all the good work of ID and prevent anybody from thinking that ID thought is a scientific thought. A denigration campaign made of ad hominem attacks, of insinuations, of constant intellectual cowardice (because even confronting the ID thought would be admitting that it exists, and maybe also because they know that they are irrevocably destined to lose).
Obviously, there are exceptions, but they are very rare.
So, it is true, the ID vs evolution debate takes place now in great part in the blogoshere (but not only there), and we know that blogs are also places of gossip (but also of very good things). So I admit, we can find a lot of gossip about the subject, on both sides, but believe me, can’t you see whose fault it is? Have you ever tried to read even a few patagraphs in Panda’s Thumb? Have you read the comments of Michael Lemonick which gave rise to this thread?
So, it would be beautiful to discuss the differences between darwinism and ID in a serene way, in a collaborative spirit of search for knowledge and truth, and in full respect of those who think differently from us. But with whom would you do that? PZ Mywers? Dawkins? Michael Lemonick?
Darwinian scientists are very good people when they do their good job: researching, objectively collecting new data. I have already said that, in my opinion, one of the strongest weapons of ID is the constant flux of new knowledge, especially new biological knowledge, which day after day contradicts the present paradigm and prepares the final scientific revolution which will put a stop to all the lies which we have been obliged to bear for half a century and more. And such a new information is often discovered by good “darwinian” reasearchers who are just doing their job, and doing it well.
But darwinian scientists become true “devils” when they desecrate their duty towards knowledge and truth by compulsively forcing an ideological, irrational and contradictory interpretation of their data, when they end each scientific paper with false declarations of the evolutional political correctness of what they are saying. I have seen that happen in almost any new biological article which has something new and interesting to say, and where the others are very, very quick to declare, in the end of the paper, that those results are a new wonderful confirmation of how evolution can perform miracles, even completely unexpected ones. Conformist thought, you know, is a very bad thing.
Jerry, it’s macroevolution they are speaking of. Nobody is really interested in microevolution, that’s just smoke in the eyes. Macroevolution is the big deal. Naturalism or teleologism is the big deal. Determinism or free will. Blind laws or intelligence. Chance or meaning. It’s no small “culture war”, and the other side is very much aware of that. That’s why they are so “nervous”, that’s why they fight so hard.

Great_Ape,

You use the term “fitness landscape” and “adaptive landscape” a couple times each. Is there anything you know of that is accessible (easily understandable) that discusses these concepts.

OK I posted another comment asking him to substantiate the claim that vision systems and the bacterial flagellum have been “solved” by science. (he says both ID icons have been refuted)

To BFast:

I support (alien) colonization over Common Descent from some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms. But that’s just me…

great_ape:

I have just read your interesting and very correct post, and I am very happy to immediately aknowledge that, with someone, it is perhaps possible to have a constructive discussion. So, let’s try it.

“I only wish I were knowledgeable enough in information theory to address what is your core claim, that RM+NS can not increase the information in a system in a nontrivial way”

Well, if we want to be very sincere, that’s only the “strong” point of view of ID, that of Dembski. Behe, in my opinion, restricts the discussion to “irreducible complexity”. But I personally agree with Dembski on that point, so let’s try to discuss it, although I am not a mathematician.
I think there are two kinds of arguments against the generation of Complex Specified Information by random events, even if “selected” by some specific environment. The first is that the mathematical and statistical model, even if the RM + NS worked in some way, cannot really work. You see, when Dembski gives the Universal Probability Bound at 1 to 10^150, he is really being very generous. Jsu to be sure, he is pushing the limit to the final limit, the nuber of bits in the universe. That’s really heavy a limit! After all, we should only consider the possible number of single variations in 5 billion years (again, generous!), which is much lower.
But let’s accept Dembski’s limit. Well, any single protein of about one hundred aminoacids is about that complex. 20^100. Do the math…
Darwinists are constantly trying to avoid the true consideration of the complexity they are trying to explain. And, again, even if RM + NS worked (and I don’t believe it works), the times and spaces are billions of times insufficient to generate that complexity.
Understand me, I am not trying to say that ID is only affirming that biological being are too complex. ID is affirming that RM and NS cannot add significant information (Dembski), that anyway they cannot create irreducibly complex information (Behe), that they cannot create information from inert matter, where there is no reproduction and therefore no selection (anybody who thinks seriously abou abiogenesis), that they cannot generate anything in beings who are few, live long, and have only a few million years to evolve incredible new characteristics (humans). And, just to be complete, that anyway biological information is far too complex, various, rich, differentiated and so on to be created by and undefined blind force such as selection.
You say: “That is why we feel the burden of demonstration falls on those who claim biological complexity is impossible without intervention”. You can feel as you please, but I cannot agree with that kind of affirmations.
The burden of demonstration falls on anyone who proposes a theory. You have a theory (RM + NS), and so you have the burden to demonstrate:
a) That it is possible
b) That it is true
ID can certainly say many things about b, but it is not even necessary, because there is absolutely no evidence that that theory is true (all the so called evidences of evolution are, in the best case, evidences of common ancestry, period). But ID has also a lot to say about a. Darwinian evolution is not only not true, it is also not possible.
So, the burden of the proof of darwinian evolution, ot it being possible and true, falls on darwinian evolutionst.
On the other hand, the burden of proof of ID fall on IDers. Well, that’s air. But ID is, in reality, a complex movement of thought, made of many parts.
a) A set of very strong theorical and practical objections to darwinian evolutions. This part of ID is exactly the part which should convince the evolutionists to demonstrate what they have never demonstrated, and to give rational answers to those objections. This part of ID is not, in itself, an alternative theory. And please, don’t affirm, like many, that we can’t discard ascientific theiry unless we have a better one available! We can and we must! If a theory is repatedly proven false, we must discard it, even if we think we have not a better explanation. After all, there areso many things that we cannot still explain (see dark energy for a good example), and human thought has propered for centuries without necessarily explaining anything.
But, luckily, we have an alternative theory, and that is ID, or rather the “constructive” part of ID. Well, that part is not, as may want to believe, a religious faith or a dognatic belief. It is a very simple theory. It is a theory which ackowledges the existence of intelligent beings (me, you, my cat, and so on) who can make intelligent choices and reate information where it was not present before. A very specific kind of information. Recognizable information. Useful nformation. Sometimes, very complex information. Not necessarily perfect. Not necessarily good.
Well, try for once to read the definition of ID which IDers give (Dembski for example). We know there are intelligent beings. We knoe that intelligently designed things are bery often recognizable. We know that biological beings very, very stronly look kile intelligently designed things (even Dawkins agrees on that).
So, the alternative theory is there, and is very simple: biological beings may have been designed by somebody who has the characteristics of intelligent beings as we know them. Very simple, isn’t it?
This theory is:
a) Certainly possible: we know that CSI can be created by inelligent beings. We see that happen every day.
b) Possibly true: the burden of the proof fall on IDers, obviously. But, at present, it is a perfeclty correct scientific hypothesis, and certainly can be preferred to the only alternative, which is instead absolutely impossible.
So, where is the problem? You may ask: who designe biological beings. Dembski and others say: that’s not the field of ID. And I agree. But there are obvious, realistic and reasonable possibilities: just to cite a couple of them:
a) aliens
b) a God
Ah, but I can hear them asking: aliens we can bear, but God? That is not science!
But why? Because you don’t believe a God exists. It is not science that does not admit a God. It is you who don’t believe it can exist.
Perfectly fair. You can have your religion or non religion, but I can have mine. So, let’s say that I believe that a God may exist (I am not alone, you know, a vast majority of human beings today, and an even greater majority in the previous centuries of human thought have believed that). Why can’t I? I am not saying that science makes me believe that. I am just saying that, if I believe that, there is no problem with my scientific theory of intelligent design. Maybe a God designed the. Or maybe aliens.
But my theory is anyway valid. It is anyway possible. It is, anyway, scientific and possibly true. And perfectly falsifiable, if you are a Popper fan (just proving evolution would be enough, for me; I am not like Ken Miller, I don’t believe that evolution in the strict sense is compatible with any spiritual perspective).
So, you see, I am giving you a very strong weapon: just prove darwinian evolution true, and you will have falsified, at least for me, all ID, and even all spiritual approaches to reality. I agree with Dawkins on that.
So, just prove it. Prove it possible. Prove it true.

“You use the term “fitness landscape” and “adaptive landscape” a couple times each. Is there anything you know of that is accessible (easily understandable) that discusses these concepts.” =Jerry

Hi Jerry,
As far as the web goes, the basics are covered decently
in the wikipedia and answers.com entries for “fitness landscape” or “adaptive landscape.” There have, in addition, been numerous theoretical articles employing these concepts, but invariably they (necessarily) a) have to drastically simplify the landscape to make the questions they are addressing tractable OR b) simply don’t know the empirical values of parameters for the lower n-dimensional landscapes, let alone the high n-dimensional landscapes that represent real biological systems.

Here’s a unfortunately poor-quality pdf scan of S. Wright:
http://www.blackwellpublishing.....wright.pdf

I briefly looked for a relevant review that was freely available, but turned up nothing… The basic idea is fairly straightforward, though, and can be gathered from the wikipedia article. It’s the details about what the space really “looks like” for a given organism and how various discrete mutational events move you around that space that represent the difficult part to grasp. And in that regard, we’re all about in the same boat b/c no one seems to have a good handle on it either. When you read the simplistic explanations with 2-D mountain peaks, etc, representing “overall fitness” just keep in mind that that single axis representing parameter space needs ultimately to be expanded in dimensions to cover a whole range of parameters (biophysical constraints,ecological constraints, etc)to accurately represent the “fitness” of a given genotype. That, in turn, dictates whether point (B) is feasibly reachable from point (A) on the landscape given (RM+drift+NS). Remember also, that “getting to point B” isn’t the most relevant question. The real question is, from any arbitrary viable point on the landscape, does an organism have *somewhere* to go along a viable path (i.e. could evolve via anagenesis)to a different type of organism or even could the organismal population take *more than one* viable path and speciate (cladogenesis). I like to think of the population more like a viscous fluid flowing through this space, occasionally pouring down multiple outlets.

If Dr Egnor wants to know if evolution can generate information, isn’t the first thing we need to ask him what he means by ‘information’ in this context?

Good post gpuccio. You responded on all the right points.

gpuccio,

Since, I have been reading about evolution, it seems that both sides have been talking past each other and it is obvious both sides are to blame. Each will state their respective positions which are obvious to themselves. Just look at the debate between the two Michaels, Egnor and Lemonick. We all know that Lemonick is wrong and being ignorant. But does he think he is? I believe that a lot of the problem is that Egnor and Lemonick are talking about different things. I find that those here at UD often do the same thing which is why I have been pushing for common definitions and correct understanding of what NDE is about.

Another way to illustrate this is the following analysis of evolutionary theory:

Evolution is a 4 tier theory.
The first tier is the origin of life or how did a cell and DNA, RNA and proteins arise. Quite a sticky issue with no sensible answer by science. Lots of speculation and wishful thinking but nothing that makes sense. A high percentage of ID concerns are in this tier and zero concerns by NDE. The recent thread on Shapiro’s article in Scientific American is about this and it is interesting that he invokes Darwinian processes to bolster his claims. Usually, evolutionary biology stays away from OOL.

The second tier is how did a one cell organism form multi-cell organisms and this include how did such complex organisms as the eye arise as these multi-cell organisms arose. How, did brains, limbs, digestive systems, neurological systems arise. These are immensely complicated but get little discussion except it all happened over time. We have all seen the “it must have evolved” comment. This is also an important area for ID but not as much so for Darwinists. Irreducible complexity operates in this tier. Also most of these systems must have developed before the Cambrian Explosion so there is relatively little geological time for these complexities to have developed.

The third tier is the one that gets the most debate in the popular press and that is how did one species arise from another species when there are substantial functional differences between them. This is macro evolution. How did birds and bats get wings to fly, how did land creatures develop oxygen breathing systems or how did man get opposable thumbs or such a big brain and why such a long time for children to develop. How did 4 chamber hearts and warm vs. cold blooded arise. There is lots of speculation but no hard evidence. An occasional fossil is brought up to show the progression ignoring the fact that there had to be tens of thousands of other steps for these progressions of which only a handful have been found. I believe the forest animal to whale is now NDE’s best example here. In this tier the ID and the Darwinist are sometimes on common ground fighting it out. But ID is much relatively interested in the issues here.

There is another part of the third tier which I call macro-evolution light. This is how did a lot of the orders and families develop? For example, within Carnivora how did all the families arise? ID seldom cares about this area but evolutionary biology does. I don’t think ID would care much if someone showed how all the family canidae arose but yet the evolutionary biologists would claim that would be a major verification of their theory. This area is a bridge between the third tier and the fourth tier.

The fourth tier is what Darwin observed on his trip on the Beagle and what most of evolutionist are talking about when they think evolution, namely micro-evolution and can be explained by basic genetics, occasion mutations, environmental pressures and of course, natural selection. Few disagree on this fourth tier including those who call themselves Intelligent Design proponents yet this is where all the evidence is that is used to persuade everyone that Darwinism is a valid theory. The evidence in this tier is used to justify the first three tiers because the materialist needs all four tiers to justify their philosophy of life but the relevance of the evidence in tier 4 for the other tiers is scant at best.
So to sum up, my experience is that ID concentrates on tier 1 and 2, a little bit on tier 3 and are not concerned at all with tier 4. And until all here and those who are confirmed backers of Darwinism realize the differences there will be no joint intelligent conversation.

Jerry, nice summation!

Jerry, I remember you posting that a while ago. I appreciated it then and I appreciate it now. And I think you are right about the sword fighting that goes on. Ninety percent of it could be eliminated if some of the misunderstandings were cleared up. But that’s life. There’s hard feelings on both sides that has been festering for years and unfortunately people (being people) can’t help but use the debate to pick at each other, often forgetting what they were debating in the first place. (Of course, I am above all of that).

I have a question. A post awhile back from “scheesman” illustrated how the history of science has come full circle. In very ancient times the design we see in living and non-living things was thought of as designed by the direct hand of God. Then scientific method came along and told us that many things appear designed, but are simply the result of natural causes and some of this was proven by experiment. This pretty much ushered in the era of naturalism runamock (i.e. the notion that all of life can probably be attributed to natural forces of some kind). Now, today as we sit in front of our computer screens, some biologists are telling us that the constituent parts of a protein could not possibly have been the product of natural causes (at least the natural workings of RM + NS). We are again left with either an unknown natural cause or a supernatural agency. I have heard on this thread that this is especially evident when we look at the genetic code. Scheesman invoked the word “abstract” in his history lesson post to describe what we know about the genetic code. And in the Time Magazine debate linked above, an important pro-ID person invoked the word “information.” I’m still quite confused about what it is about genetics that invokes these descriptive words. Do you see the genetics or the genetic code as “abstract” and “information.” And why? Thank you in advance.

Barrett1,

Yes, I posted it before, maybe more than once I think. I added a couple things to it this time.

I was not able to find the comment by Scheesman that you referred to. I have some of the discussions on UD saved on my computer and the Mac I own lets one search the computer for any phrase. He is a scientific software developer from Canada and maybe he is following some of the discussions so he will comment again.

Jerry,

I liked your very clear summation too. It can help us to give more order to our discussions.
Although I agree with you on almost everything, I must again (for the last time, I hope) remember that any ambiguity about these “tiers” cannot be attributed to IDers. For instance, IDers have never tried, to my knowledge, to deny microevolution (tier 4).
But even at that level, there is great ambiguity and bad reasoning on the part of darwinists. Take, for instance, the case of antibiotic resistance. If you read evolutionists’s sites, you can find that it is offered as a definitive example of observed “speciation”, as macroevolution in action, before our own eyes. Well, as we know, that is an explicit lie. Whoever interested can read the very good article linked here in UD about the subject. But just to sum up, antibiotic resistance is usually due to HGT, that is to tranference between bacteria of alredy existing genes (such as enzymes which can degrade the antibiotic). As we have discussed, HGT is a powerful tool, but it does not create any new information. The other cases of resistance are due to “negative mutations” that is to mutations which imply a loss of function, where the resistance to the antibiotic is a byproduct of the loss of function itself (for instance, because the protein which was the point of attack of the antibiotic has changed). Here the mutation is a negative one, and the acquisition of the resistance just a random sub-effect.
Is that different from information building? Yes, it is. Definitely. In the case of a specific enzyme, let’s say penicillinase, we have a gene and a protein which have a very specific and unlikely function: degrading penicillin (which, obviously, is another bacterial product). We are inside an information network, a refined information network which rules the interaction between bacteria in a sophisticated, intelligent way. Any enzyme is a wonderful product of biochemical engineering, and no evolutionist has ever demonstrated how the information in a single enzymatic protein could have been created by RM + NS (see also the very perinent work by Behe). Genes are often activated or inhibited by environmental constraints, but never created by environmental constraint. The wonderful network of transcription regulation can give billions of different intelligent and functional patterns from the same DNA, and nobody really knows how. That mysterious complexity of response and adaptation is often misinterpreted as “evolutional change”, but that is only a gross deformation of truth.
But let’s speak briefly of the other tiers. I would add a couple of new ones, if you pardon my audacity. One is the transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, which is almost as problematic as OOL (OK, I said “almost”). Another one is the appearance of sex reproduction, which is very difficult to explain in a “step by step” way.
And, finally, I would not forget the generation of the incredible complexity of the human nervous system: about 10^11 neurons, a much greater number of ordered connections, a structure and working mechanisms which still defy any human understanding, and a processing capacity, and mathematical and informational functionality, which dwarfs any computer and confounds any information theory.
And that last “tier” has apparently evolved in a few millions years, the wink of an eye in evolutional times, and in a species (chimps or similar) whose numerosity was certainly ridiculously low (compare to bacteria) and whose reproductive time was impossibly long (again, compare to bacteria), and whose complexity was already so high that any simple, “step by step” ladder of modification is virtually inconceivable.
So, let’s leave to darwinists their “tier 4″ of microevolution. It really doesn’t matter.
But for tier 1 (OOL) there is no game. And neither for tier 1 bis (prokaryote to eukaryote) or 2 (one cellular to multicellular). Yes, we can discuss tier 3 (subsequent speciation), but just for the fun.
And again, for the last tier (human nervous system and its functions), I am sorry, but really there is no game at all (By the way, I am looking forward to reading Denyse’s new book about science and mind…)

Barrett1:

Yes, the genetic code (at least the part we understand) is “abstract” and is “information”. That is obvious when you look at its role. It is, indeed, a code, and a redundant one. Each DNA triple has a specific “meaning”, corresponding to one of the twenty aminoacids, and that meaning is almost universal in living beings. And there are punctuation triplets. So, it is a “language”, that is, an abstract form of communication between the nucleus, depositary of the information for the proteins (and of who knows how many other things), and the translation mechanism. The translation is, indeed, a “translation”, that is: the abstract information in the DNA code is recognized and transformed in a real sequence of aminoacids by the rybosomes.
In other words, there is no known reason why, for instance, the aminoacid leucin is coded by four different triplets: CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, and not by others. In some way, the translational mechanism is “fine tuned” on the same language, and the couplings work.
In the same way, any biochemical network whose purpose is to transfer information is, in essence, abstract and informational. Such are, for instance, the cytokines network, and the pathways which trasmit signals from the cell membrane to the nucleus. Each single protein is not important in itself, for what it does (as could be the case, for instance, for final effective protein whose purpose is to synthesize some important product). Informational proteins are important because they transmit a signal and help regulate it and integrate it. Their final target is, again, the incredibly complex and little knpwn world of the netwotk of transcription factors in the nucleus, the real “master” of all cell life. Again, information in its purest, most abstract form.

Great ape wrote:
I have heard others, more knowledgeable than myself, say that information–at least as Shannon defined it–can readily be increased via noise.

That is true. One can take a source of noise digitize it and fill a 40 gig disk drive with it. Such a noisy process is arguably increasing some form of information. The file size will show that as the noise is input into the computer, the file size increases, hence an information increase.

But information coming from noise generators cannot be Complex Specified Information by definition. What Darwinists unwittingly try to explain is the presence of specified information. The word “information” in ID literature is referring to specified information, which is a special subset of Shannon information, not Shannon information in general.

Why is it for example you can readily recognize music? Music is a form of specified complexity. Noise is unspecified. Music fits a pattern. Surprisingly you can recognize music as music even if you’ve never heard it before or explicitly have the pattern before hand in your brain. Why is that? The answer as to why you can recognize patterns you’ve never seen before is in Dembski’s latest work on specification which you can read for free at designinference.com

10 megs of music and 10 megs of noise are both shannon information measures of bytewise content on your disk drive, but hopefully you can see that 10 megs of music is specified information and 10 megs of noise is not (or at least not demonstratably specified).

The question is why does biology (like music) give us recognizable patterns rather than noise? Noise can not be the answer (by definition), but design can be.

Sal

Gil,

The time is much less than 5 billion. Somewhere about 600-650 mya the first multi-celled animals showed up in the fossil record and by 525 mya there was the Cambrian Explosion with such things as all the eyes that ever developed already “evolved.” I am sure there were numberous other systems that had to be present in these primitive Cambrian animals for them to survive and all this happens in roughly 100 million years.

It is amazing how 5 billion turns into 100 million in a minute of reflection. Now 100 million is a long time but it is not 5 billion.

Also the first cells turned up almost as soon as water formed on the planet about 3.6 to 3.8 billion years ago. Which was absolutely rapid. So the time frame for the formation of the first proteins is much smaller than you gave it or PZ wants to admit to.

“they often don’t defend what ID does challenge: the origin of complex biological information by Darwinian mechanisms.” ==Gil

The problem with the big ID tent, though–at least as I see it–is that far more than these core ID concerns are raised by those waving the ID banner. There is the frequent jab at common decent, old earth, etc. If the criticism directed at NDE were not from a sort of disorganized barrage from people with numerous agendas, the more core and interesting criticisms would get more attention. Otherwise, the low hanging fruit for evolution proponents will always be to take on the fellow who insists god hid the bones in the ground to test our faith.

“The word “information” in ID literature is referring to specified information, which is a special subset of Shannon information, not Shannon information in general.” ==Sal

Hi Sal,

Thanks for trying to explain the distinction concerning information vs. specified information. Information theory is well outside of my domain, but I have been trying to familiarize myself enough to evaluate some of these arguments for myself. I am by no means there yet. I would, however, be curious to know how you would respond to the criticism that I’ve heard made that “specified complex information” does not exist as a formal I.T. concept outside of ID writings? Are there other (non-ID) contexts in which these concepts are formally used in academia, etc? (Not that establishment in academia is everything, but it does suggest more credibility b/c more brains have mulled over and criticized possible weaknesses)

Thanks,
Ape

There is the frequent jab at common descent, old earth,

ID does not address common descent or old earth. Now, threads on these boards sometimes go far off-range but there seems to be a common theme namely that the dogma of the scientific establishment makes it blind to evidence and/or (much worse) isn’t blind to evidence but marginalizes it for a political agenda.

great_ape,

One of the peculiarities of the discussions of CSI to me has been the lack of a good definition of the “S” part of the designation. What does it mean to be specified.

Now there are lots of good examples of specified information but I have not seen any good definition of it. For example, a typical English sentence is specified but what definition leads to this conclusion?

I have seen people use the analogy of a thunder storm as complex specified information because it is obviously complex and the distribution of all the various molecules at different temperatures contains a huge amount of information and there are some systematic elements to it that differ from normal atmospheric combinations that give it its unique attributes. Now a thunder storm which is a combination of natural forces is obviously different that a composed English sentence. But what is the essential difference that could be put in a definition that would automatically distinnguish the two.

Maybe someone here could help with this and put it into layman’s language.

The obvious extension to biology is DNA and its ability to govern complex systems. Now we know that thunder storms can arise from the forces of physics playing out and we know that an English sentence can never arise from any random event. So is DNA like the thunder storm or is it like the English sentence?

To me it seems obvious but what is the definitional distinction that would lead to saying no to a thunder storm as specified and yes to an English sentence or DNA as specified.

Maybe someone here who has read more on this can help. I can follow the probabilistic arguments fairly easily having been a mathematics major and had several courses in statistics and probability. But what has been interesting is that in all the discussions here I have never seen a good definition of what it means to be specified. Is it like “obscene” that you find it impossible to define but recognize it when you see it?

Stephen Gould was on to something with NOMA — the problem is the scientific establishment did not/does not believe religion should have its “magisteria” i.e. if the scientific establishment declares something, it’s right regardless of how it steps on a religious tradition.

One observation is if we (the U.S.) had the educational standards we had from 1776 to 1962 (prayer and Bible readings allowed in school) this debate would not be an iota as shrill.

The Dover case would never have happened for instance.

One of the peculiarities of the discussions of CSI to me has been the lack of a good definition of the “S” part of the designation. What does it mean to be specified?

Jerry, Dembski defines it as: