Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

I don’t get why Christian preachers need to shout out against intelligent design.

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Can someone explain?

A friend directs me to this example, but you needn’t doubt I’d find more.

Who would want this individual managing their stock portfolio?:

If you crunch the numbers in relation to your own birth (i.e. the probability that a particular sperm united with a particular egg multiplied by the probability that your parents met and repeated the calculation back until the beginning of time), you will get a fantastically low probability.

And so? Look – I cannot bring my parents into this (O’Leary, b 1950), because they are still alive.

But let me bring my grandparents, now happily at rest, into it instead: They kept trying and they got what they wanted.

The stats are 9 children on one side and 10 on the other, all born alive, no early deaths. That shows what intelligent design can do.

And if you have a problem with that, call on me only if you want a door slammed in your face for free. No need to go to the local Madam. That would happen here whether you enjoy it or not.

While we are here: Lewis Wolpert? He debated Dembski here.  Holy kazoo! This wouldn’t be the same Wolpert who was
dumbfounded when his son became a Christian?

Naw. Couldn’t be. Ain’t possible that guy’s son knew something his paw didn’t.

Like, Darwinism guarantees that that can’t happen, right?

Comments
Zachriel, Galápagos Finches are an example of variation within a Kind- IOW it is perfectly within baraminology. As for anti-biotic resistance: Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change? Also "evolution" is not being deabted. You have been informed of this many times and you still use the equivocation.Joseph
January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
(Of course, Natural Selection is not the only mechanism in play.) In other words, something happened, we're not sure what. You've just spent several posts ascribing this very small modification to natural selection, only to backtrack by admitting that you don't really know what caused it. But that didn't stop you from making this statement: There is a strong trend in hominid evolution towards larger brains, so there is obviously some selection involved. How is it obvious that there is some selection involved, if we don't start with the unfounded assumption that natural selection is responsible for everything? Or was it one of the other mechanisms that you alluded to but didn't specify?ScottAndrews
January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews: I don’t believe that the concept of natural selection is inherently tautological.
Good. So we have established that we can directly observe Natural Selection, such as in the last few decades in Darwin's Finches. (Of course, Natural Selection is not the only mechanism in play.) From genetic studies, we can confirm that Darwin's Finches all radiated from a single species; and as the Galápagos Islands are geologically young, that this diversification must have occurred over the last 5-10 million years. They have adapted into a variety of niches normally occupied by finches, wrens, warblers and woodpeckers. The hypothesis is that because these niches were wide open, even minor changes would open up new food sources to the colonizers. In addition, the rates of morphological change required for these adaptations are less than what is directly observed due to Natural Selection. (The Grants documented rates in the tens-of-thousands of darwins.)Zachriel
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
Tautologies are always true. No wonder you're so certain. I don't believe that the concept of natural selection is inherently tautological. If a rat is born with no pigmentation, it has a greater chance of dying before reproducing. It works well when the specific change is observable and the consequence is understood. There is no established connection between variation and selection and any significant morphological change, including the increase in hominid brain sizes. Yet we hear ad nauseum every life form imaginable attributed to selection, the only evidence being their very existence. They exist, so they were selected, so they exist. Perhaps you can extrapolate the change in a finch's beak to derive every body plan, every innovative feature, and every behavior in every living thing. Then again, you probably went for the fish with fingers, too.ScottAndrews
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews: Tautologies are true, whenever they are true. And when they are not true, then they aren’t.
Tautologies are always true.
ScottAndrews: There is no independent observation of the selection of hominid brain sizes.
One step at a time. You claimed Natural Selection was tautological. You've been provided a non-tautological definition, and examples where we can demonstrate and measure its effects.Zachriel
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
Zachriel: You’re confusing “true” with “tautological.” Tautologies are true, whenever they are true. And when they are not true, then they aren't. But they don't make a convincing case. A correlation between independent variables is not tautological. There is no independent observation of the selection of hominid brain sizes. The only independent variable is the brain size itself. When you assume that the larger brain sizes were the result of selection simply because they exist, that is tautological, circular reasoning. How many times in this thread alone have you cited variation or evolution as evidence of natural selection? All variations result from selection, because selection causes all variation.ScottAndrews
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
Nakashima: Epigenetic inheritance, for one. And the inability of random variation, selected or otherwise, to account for changes that mimic planning and complex problem-solving, for two. And because there's insufficient evidence to support it, which is way more important than having evidence to question it, for three. No one knows why hominid brains got larger. If we can't admit that, we're not being intellectually honest.ScottAndrews
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
Zachriel: Natural Selection is the correlation betweeen variations in heritable traits and differential reproductive potential. ScottAndrews: It’s not necessarily tautological, but usually is.
You're confusing "true" with "tautological." A correlation between independent variables is not tautological.
ScottAndrews: The assumption that most or all variations are random is questionable, and casts a shadow on every logical step that follows from it.
We can show that adaptive mutations are random with respect to fitness in the Lederberg Experiment.Zachriel
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
Mr ScottAndrews, The assumption that most or all variations are random is questionable, and casts a shadow on every logical step that follows from it. What evidence do you have to question this?Nakashima
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
Note: The fourteenth Darwin's Finch species is found on Cocos Island, not the Galápagos. The "or more" refers to possibly extinct species.Zachriel
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
jerry: The Grants concluded that all the finches were essentially one gene pool that could interbreed with each other.
The Grants agree with the vast majority of biologists that Galápagos Finches entail more than one species. Though there is some interspecific hybridization, the populations largely maintain distinct gene pools and character traits. Grant, Ecology and Evolution of Darwin's, Princeton University Press 2000.
The derivation of thirteen or more species on Galápagos from a single ancestral species was the product of repeated splittings of single lineages into two or more non-interbreeding lines of descent.
Agreement on the occurrence of fourteen species should not be taken to mean the absence of taxonomic problems. Sympatric populations that do not interbreed, or interbreed rarely, are clearly separate species.
Zachriel
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
The Grants concluded that all the finches were essentially one gene pool that could interbreed with each other. And that it takes over 20 million years to form a population that cannot interbreed. At that rate, Old Sol will have expired before anything interesting could develop.jerry
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
Mung: So “the rate of natural selection” is the same across all species in all environments. Zachriel: No. A classic study was by Peter and Rosemary Grant who spent decades observing generations of finches on the Galápagos island, Daphne Major. Rates of evolution varied considerably. Joseph: Finches “evolving” into finches.
The question was whether or not rates of evolution vary. They do. For instance, the rate of evolution of antibiotic resistance directly corresponds with exposure to antibiotics. The mutations are random, but the rate of evolution depends on the environment.Zachriel
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
Joseph: Finches “evolving” into finches.
Actually, we know that Galápagos Finches evolved from a common ancestor into a variety of different behaviors and morphologies like wrens, warblers, even woodpeckers. As the Galápagos Islands are only 5-10 million years old, that allows us to observe the effects of evolution over that time-scale.Zachriel
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
"Natural selection" can be reduced to- whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce. That is because there is never just one reason why some survive and others do not. And there is more than one reason why some reproduce and others do not.Joseph
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
A classic study was by Peter and Rosemary Grant who spent decades observing generations of finches on the Galápagos island, Daphne Major. Rates of evolution varied considerably.
Finches "evolving" into finches. How does that help your position when it appears to support baraminology?Joseph
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
That is because there is no way to predict what will be selected at any point in time Zachriel:
Of course we can. A simple method is by exposing bacteria to antibiotics and then showing that some have heritable traits that provide resistance to the antibiotics. We can also show this in nature as many moulds produce antibiotics as a defense mechanism. (That’s how Alexander Fleming discovered antibiotics.)
That is artificial selection Zachriel. Also there isn't anything that sez any bacteria in any particular colony will have resistence to the selection pressure. Also the PBS series "Evolution" said what I did- that there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time- quoting Dan Dennett. and there is no way to predict what mutation will occur at any point in time- meaning no predictive power.
In 1952, the Lederbergs provided an easily replicable method demonstrating that at least some mutations are random with respect to fitness.
That has nothing to do with what I said. You have a bad habit of responding with stuff that has nothing to do with what you are responding to. Do you not realize how idiotic that makes you appear?Joseph
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
Nakashima: Complaining that survival/selection is tautological is like complaining raindrops/raining is tautological.. If you find someone complaining, by all means let them know. Zachriel: Natural Selection is the correlation betweeen variations in heritable traits and differential reproductive potential. It's not necessarily tautological, but usually is. If the variations in heritable traits are random, then the power is in the selection. If the variations are not random, then the power is in the variations. The assumption that most or all variations are random is questionable, and casts a shadow on every logical step that follows from it. You appear to be sidestepping all of this and holding to the tautological notion that the reason for any organism's survival is its selection.ScottAndrews
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
Zachriel: All of this is built upon yet another assumption, that the source of the variation was random. If the variations in the finches' beaks that provided improved "fitness" was random, then natural selection is what chooses between the variations. If it wasn't random, then selection is rendered meaningless. More recent research has indicated that organisms sometimes have a limited ability to alter their own morphology in response to environmental changes. How sound, therefore, is the assumption that the selection of random mutations is responsible for the changes to their beaks? I respect research, but I don't enshrine it. And it certainly fails to explain more significant enhancements, such as intellects so vast that their bearers rarely find a use for them. Interesting that selection bestows such unnecessary riches on one species while others must be content with variations for cracking open seeds.ScottAndrews
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
Zachriel: Natural selection is evident when we can show that the trait is adaptive and rapidly evolving. ScottAndrews: We see selection because we see change, and change is caused by selection. Circular.
It's not circular at all. Natural Selection is the correlation betweeen variations in heritable traits and differential reproductive potential. Start with bacteria again. We add antibiotics to a native population. We notice that some live and some die. We take the descendents of the survivors and expose them to antibiotics. We observe they survive. They have inherited the resistance. Hence, there is a correlation between a heritable trait and reproductive potential, a.k.a. Natural Selection.
ScottAndrews: I get that we see changes in finch beaks. I get that you think selection is the cause. But how has that been determined?
It's a fascinating study. The Grants spent decades on Daphne Major. They recorded not only every individual finch, their traits and their genealogy, but all the environmental factors, such as plant life, rainfall, temperature. They demonstrated a link between beak morphology, the availability of different foods, and direct observations of evolution of these populations. They also collected genetic data which allowed them to show that gene expression patterns can account for the observed variations. Weiner, The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time, Vintage 1995. Abzhanov et al., Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin's Finches, Science 2004. (By the way, this is exactly the kind of science that garners respect. They do more than talk about stuff. They actually spent years observing, collecting data, analyzing, and publishing for their peers to study, criticize, and expand upon their findings.)Zachriel
January 10, 2010
January
01
Jan
10
10
2010
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
Mr ScottAndrews, Survival is "not dying before reproducing", and selection is "differential survival due to trait variance". Complaining that survival/selection is tautological is like complaining raindrops/raining is tautological. Each is the relationship of a state of being to an ongoing process. The fact that you can construct uninformative little definitional loops such as "raindrops happen when it rains, and rain is raindrops" does not invalidate more elaborate and detailed explanations, or the phenomenon itself. Rain happens.Nakashima
January 10, 2010
January
01
Jan
10
10
2010
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
Natural selection is evident when we can show that the trait is adaptive and rapidly evolving. You don't even see yourself doing it. We see selection because we see change, and change is caused by selection. Circular. I get that we see changes in finch beaks. I get that you think selection is the cause. But how has that been determined? I understand that to you it makes perfect sense that the change is due to selection. You understand how you think it might work. That's your hypothesis. Again, what observation supports the conclusion that selection, and not something else, is responsible for the change in the finch beaks, the hominid brain sizes, and the antibiotic-producing mold? Can you answer that without assuming your conclusion?ScottAndrews
January 10, 2010
January
01
Jan
10
10
2010
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
Natural Selection is the correlation betweeen heritable traits and differential reproductive potential.
ScottAndrews: We seem trapped in this circular logic. Morphological changes are caused by natural selection. We know that because living things change over time as a result of natural selection.
We know it works with antibiotics. We can also measure it directly in organisms such as finches, isolated populations of rodents, or less directly in the evolution of crop plants. We use different methods over different timescales, another example being island colonization. And we can show that rates of change due to selection can be very rapid, much more rapid than required to explain the historical record. (There are other mechanisms involved, of course.) As to specific transitions, it can be difficult to determine the particulars. We are, after all, trying to reconstruct historical events. Natural selection is evident when we can show that the trait is adaptive and rapidly evolving.Zachriel
January 9, 2010
January
01
Jan
9
09
2010
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
Mung: So “the rate of natural selection” is the same across all species in all environments.
No. A classic study was by Peter and Rosemary Grant who spent decades observing generations of finches on the Galápagos island, Daphne Major. Rates of evolution varied considerably.Zachriel
January 9, 2010
January
01
Jan
9
09
2010
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
Zachriel, Natural selection seems like a plausible explanation for antibiotic resistance. When molds produce antibiotics as a defense mechanism, is that the result of natural selection? When hominid brains grow larger over time, is that the result of natural selection? We seem trapped in this circular logic. Morphological changes are caused by natural selection. We know that because living things change over time as a result of natural selection. This is rather important, as this concept is occasionally called the 'cornerstone of biology.' By what observation have we determined that natural selection is the cause of morphological changes such as increasing hominid brain size? It appears that this could be an assumption so deeply ingrained in our way of thinking that it looks like an answer for everything whether or not it's accurate.ScottAndrews
January 9, 2010
January
01
Jan
9
09
2010
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
Joseph: That is because there is no way to predict what will be selected at any point in time ...
Of course we can. A simple method is by exposing bacteria to antibiotics and then showing that some have heritable traits that provide resistance to the antibiotics. We can also show this in nature as many moulds produce antibiotics as a defense mechanism. (That's how Alexander Fleming discovered antibiotics.)
Joseph: ... and there is no way to predict what mutation will occur at any point in time- meaning no predictive power.
In 1952, the Lederbergs provided an easily replicable method demonstrating that at least some mutations are random with respect to fitness.Zachriel
January 9, 2010
January
01
Jan
9
09
2010
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
Zachriel is still blathering on about hypothesses yet his position doesn't offer one based on the proposed mechanisms. That is because there is no way to predict what will be selected at any point in time and there is no way to predict what mutation will occur at any point in time- meaning no predictive power.Joseph
January 9, 2010
January
01
Jan
9
09
2010
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
Seversky:
First, although it explains how life started on Earth, it still tells us nothing about how life itself originated.
That is where we start Seversky. We start with what we can observe. We can observe living organisms on this planet. Therefor science is restricted to figuring out how it got here- period.
That would certainly account for the waste and suffering.
The Fall from Grace does that too, as does random effects to a once good design.Joseph
January 9, 2010
January
01
Jan
9
09
2010
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
Zachriel: For instance, the observed rates of evolution due to natural selection must be at least as great as the rates observed in the historical record. There are no cases in which you can measure the changes in hominid brain size due to natural selection. When has there ever been a change in hominid brain size that you could attribute to natural selection? If natural selection is the scientific explanation, then explain what selective pressures led to increased brain size without resorting to conjecture. What selective pressures were observed to cause the increase in brain size? A hypothesis is a tentative scientific assumption made for the purposes of devising empirical tests Let's stick to that, then. Too many people have already been confused by having hypotheses presented to them as something more.ScottAndrews
January 9, 2010
January
01
Jan
9
09
2010
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
We can durectly observe natural selection, measure its rate, compare it to rates of neutral mutation. We can then compare this to the historical record, which is replete with the type of incremental change expected by an evolutionary process.
So "the rate of natural selection" is the same across all species in all environments. I'm still trying to fight my way off the "needs to be moderated" list, so I am taking a chance here, but frankly, this is pure unadulterated BS.Mung
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply