Genomic Junk and Evolution

_{Cornelius Hunter

July 5, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Evolution was claimed to be an undeniable fact in the nineteenth century so today new proofs hardly seem necessary. But science continues to offer them up, say evolutionists, as we probe the depths of biology. These days a common source of such proofs is the genomic data which exploded onto the scene in recent decades. But are the new data really undeniable confirmations of Enlightenment speculation or are the new data merely interpreted according to the same old metaphysics? Read more

Comments

gpuccio. actually I find "materialism" to be very meaningful in that the materialists have been forced to dramatically alter their stance of what they mean by materialism in the first place by the evidence for reality. i.e. the evidence is not "materialist" friendly in the least! So what if now the materialists are left to argue for whatever non-teleological imagination they can conjure up. I find it hilarious and very illuminating to the bankruptcy of their philosophical basis that are forced to such absurd extremes just so to deny teleology.bornagain77_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

mullerpr (163), "Funny how the proposed Darwinian process of Mutation & Natural Selection did not achieve this level of optimum design" I'm not entirely sure what you are saying, but what is and is not an "optimum" design is always open to question and context dependent. For instance, something may be "optimum" given the limitations of the source material and the environment in which it lives. That level of what is "optimum" may be different to "optimum" from another source or in a different environment. Evolution can only work with what it has been given from a previous generation, and within the environments in which the organisms subsist.Gaz_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

R0b: If the hidden-variables position follows from materialism, then apparently modern physicists are immaterialists. Little do they know. And my sense is that little do most of them care. “Spooky action at a distance” is manifestation of a quantum wave function, which is non-local. You could say that a wave function is physically nothing, merely a mathematical abstraction, until it collapses. Or you could say that it’s something that physically exists. It makes no difference to the science of QM, which is concerned only with empirically tested mathematical models. I agree with you that "materialism" is not a meaningful term. I think the approach of many who embrace a certain kind of worldview (including most darwinists) can be better defined "reductionist", or "scientistic". So called "methodological naturalism" is often a masked form of that approach. The reductionist approach os characterized by an "a priori" assumption that all aspect of reality, including those whuch we have not yet discovered, will be explained according to the scientific scenario as we understand it today. That does not mean that reductionists do not admit any possible variation in the scientific scenario: let's just say that they have a veru conservative viuew of scientific reality, and a very strong faith that a core of already known principles will not be involved in serious changes, and that such a core will be able anyway the basis for any explanation of reality. For instance, in the ninteenth century a reductionist would have been very certain that traditional physics was capable to explain everything through purely determionistic laws, or that space and time were absolute principles. Theories like relativity or QM were not even conceivable for the standard reductionist of those times, exactly as Godel's theorem was not expected by conventional mathemathicians. Today, the standard reductionist is certainly sure that thje basic laws of physics, plus maybe the principles of QM, are the essential core which will explain everything, including consciousness and its phenomena. The scenario changes, but the attitude is the same. I am not a reductionist. I believe thatg science wiil grow beyond the current scenario, and that the new things will be, as the word itself explains, "new": they will be unexpexted, and they will change the whole scenario, and not only marginal details. We already have important unexplained facts (dark energy, just to give an example), and consciousnessband its relationship to matter remains, iMO, a fundamental unexplained field in the current scientific scenario. But I agree with you, the problem is not "materialsim" in itself.gpuccio_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

In fact, the "best" design for any species would be to become immune to any environmental pressure that might impact their survival. Just think where that would leave the concept of "best or better" design. Funny how the proposed Darwinian process of Mutation & Natural Selection did not achieve this level of optimum design, where the only organisms that survive are the ones that only live from non-living mineral substances. But wait!... Is that not where life originally started? Why did it deviate from that perfect Darwinian state to become inter dependent. O, yes I remember, symbiotic systems and different sexes has become the new best design because the mindless Darwinian process said so beneficial. You see like all for all designs there is a mind or minds that ultimately decide parameters within which optimum features are decided.mullerpr_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT}

Gaz, The best design for some whales would be if they had no economically sought after body features to ensure that humans do not considered them a valuable resource.mullerpr_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT}

Vividblue, bornagain77, Clive Hayden, To demonstrate why I made the comment I did see, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing and especially the subsection "Science" - essentially, having "nothing" in this Universe is impossible.Gaz_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
01:29 AM
1
01
29
AM
PDT}

Acipenser (157), Many thanks indeed for the correction (and for a great start to my day - it's before breakfast and I've already learned something new!). Hmm, does this mean that a better design would have been to give marine mammals gills?Gaz_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT}

Gaz RE 143 "Most people THINK they know what “nothing” means – actually, in physics, “nothing” is very complex" Greetings Gaz, How can nothing be complex? Vividvividbleau_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

Rob RE 135 "Obviously, “nothing” can mean different things to different people in different contexts." Hi Rob, Hope life is treating you well. A few thoughts and I welcome your comments. It seems to me that as soon as you say "nothing can mean different things" we no longer can be dicussing nothing since nothing is NoThing. It has no thingness ( my word) What we really are describing are different things and calling these different things nothing even though they are things and cannot be nothing. "Is such a concept of “nothing” even logically coherent?" Since it is impossible to even concieve "nothing" to say something came from nothing is indeed incoherent. My Best Vividvividbleau_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT}

Gaz: they would still need lungs whilst gills evolved and lungs are far more efficient at extracting oxygen than gills. A minor point that does not have any effect on the point you were trying to make. Gills are much more efficient in extracting oxygen than are gills. There are a number of reasons for this one important one is that gas exchange in gills occurs via a countercurrent exchange. Lungs are tidal and blood-oxygen PO2 can never exceed that of the air that enters the lungs. Air is about 20% oxygen and dissolved oxygen in water typically falls into the 0.001% range(ppm) or so. Gills are clearly the superior design in oxygen extraction efficiency but it requires large volume of media to pas over the gills in order to oxygenate the blood of the animal.....about 450 times more than a lung can hold simply because of the much lower oxygen content of the water. carry on!Acipenser_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

No, you are not correct. the improbability just excludes that what we observe can be the result of random processes, having the appearance of specification. It allows design detection avoiding false positives. But in no way it “determines” design. How can I be more clear? Got it, I see what you mean now. The fact is, we observe design in humans. And, as we ourselves humans, and designers, we observe in ourselves the correspondence netween specific conscious representations and the act of design. For instance, if we are implementing a function in a software, we recognize that our implementation follows a conscious representation of that function, including a specific teleologic sense of waht the function should accomplish. Without those conscious representations, we could never design anything. The conscious observer who “recognizes” a function in the supposedly designed object is doing the same thing in the opposite way: he sees the implemented function, and he consciously represents the intentions of the designer of the object. The point is, the observer could be wrong: design can be simple, functions can be simple, but objects sometimes present the appearance of simple function withouy having been designed by a conscious being, just out of random events (or, in alternative, as the order deriving form a necessity mechanisms). Therefore, simple specifications are not guarantee that an object was designed by a conscious intelligent being. But complex specifications are Why? There are two reasons for that. One is probabilistic, the second purely empirical. The first is that complex specified sequences are such a tiny subset of all possible sequences that it is empirically “impossible” that they are produced by a random system. Agreed, if 'random' means 'arrived at in one go'. The second is that no non conscious system has been observed that is capable to generate new dFSCI, while conscious intelligent beings (humans) do that easily and all the time. I disagree; I know of one rather well-known mechanism that can, in theory, produce CSI. No wonder ID spends so much time trying to disprove it. :) Thank you for taking the time to answer, I understand the position a little better now.Venus Mousetrap_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

ROb @ 147 "but I’m not very interested in such endeavors." Thanks. I won't waste my time.tgpeeler_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

I missed some italics up there; the second paragraph is Clive's.Venus Mousetrap_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

If you have antlers, you have to have hooves, an even number of toes, four legs, and a backbone. That’s after-the-fact reasoning based on after-the-fact observation, which could have been different, and would indeed have been different according to evolution, if evolution were started over again. Ask Ken Miller, he claims that if evolution had been played out again we could’ve been mollusks. You seem to labor under the false notion that there is teleology in evolution, when evolution claims nothing of the sort. Sorry, I wasn't being very clear, - I didn't mean that this combination of features is inevitable regardless of what happens. What I meant was that, as life exists now, all animals with antlers also have hoofs, four legs, and so forth, because these are nested features. This is exactly what would happen if features were passed down only by common descent - a dumb copying process, only giving organisms the properties that came before them. Which is it you dispute; that the nested hierarchy exists, or that it indicates common descent? And secondly, there is no law that says that hoofs and antlers must be together, as if it was some mental necessity that we percieve with our faculties of reason, like 2+2=4. You’re mistaken. That wasn't what I meant, I meant that as life exists now, anything with antlers must have hooves if common descent is true. We can easily imagine hoofed animals having no antlers. I think you mean the other way :) Hoofed animals without antlers already exist. Antlered animals without hoofs don't. It is peculiar that either one exist, and we can certainly imagine them apart without a mental impossibility like 2+2=7, for we see no law that they must always be together. The law is imposed by common descent. If you have antlers, then you must have inherited them; the animal that first had antlers also had hooves, so you also have hooves. Repetition is not a law, for a law implies that we understand its implementation and enactment, not that we have seen some of its effects. We do not have knowledge of the sort required to claim that antlers and hoofs must be together. We do if common descent is true. We know this because we know the common ancestor of deer and bovines, and that ancestor does not have antlers, but does have hoofs. “Must be together” as if having one on an animal alone would be like breaking the law of non-contradiction. There is no such law, no such demand. There is if common descent is true. Antlers cannot exist on any animal that lacks hoofs. If they do, then by the rules of common descent, the deer genome has somehow travelled back in time. This is why I couldn't understand why you thought common descent was flexible enough to allow any animal. It clearly isn't. That's also why I thought it had been settled - every animal on earth follows the same rule of nested hierarchy, if it reproduces with inheritance.Venus Mousetrap_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

Actually Rob since you are so far off base I got to throw you out,,, the refutation of hidden variables actually gives concrete proof that transcendent information is real, it is NOT an abstraction. Moreover it gives evidence that transcendent information exercises dominion of energy, with further insights flowing from that.bornagain77_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

So now that hidden variables are refuted, and hidden variables arose from Einstein’s base materialistic philosophy in the first place, what do you say is causing the “spooky action at a distance”,,, NOTHING ???? LOL
If the hidden-variables position follows from materialism, then apparently modern physicists are immaterialists. Little do they know. And my sense is that little do most of them care. "Spooky action at a distance" is manifestation of a quantum wave function, which is non-local. You could say that a wave function is physically nothing, merely a mathematical abstraction, until it collapses. Or you could say that it's something that physically exists. It makes no difference to the science of QM, which is concerned only with empirically tested mathematical models.R0b_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

notes: The materialistic belief of the universe being stable, and infinite in duration, was so deeply rooted in scientific thought that Albert Einstein (1879-1955), when he was shown his general relativity equation indicated a universe that was unstable and would "draw together" under its own gravity, added a cosmological constant to his equation to reflect a stable universe rather than entertain the thought that the universe had a beginning. Einstein and The Belgian Priest, George Lemaitre - The "Father" Of The Big Bang Theory - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4279662 of note: This was not the last time Einstein's base materialistic philosophy had severely misled him. He was also severely misled in the Bohr–Einstein debates in which he was repeatedly proven wrong in challenging the "spooky action at a distance" postulations of the emerging field of quantum mechanics. The Failure Of Local Realism - Materialism - Alain Aspect - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145bornagain77_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

Rob you state: "In modern science, your assumption is, in fact, generally regarded as misguided. But you’re in good company. Even Einstein couldn’t shake the “inner voice” telling him that there must be hidden variables causing the particle to go through slit A rather than slit B." So now that hidden variables are refuted, and hidden variables arose from Einstein's base materialistic philosophy in the first place, what do you say is causing the "spooky action at a distance",,, NOTHING ???? LOLbornagain77_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

Clive:
Then physicists, like evolutionists, make up their own meanings for words to suit their discipline.
As far as I know, "nothing" is not a term of art in physics. But modern physics has teased out a lot of counterintuitive nuances in concepts that previously seemed quite simple, like "space", "time", "matter", etc.
Nothing means what it has always meant, nothing at all whatsoever. True nothing, if you will.
Strange, then, that attempts at disambiguation are regarded as insincere.R0b_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

bornagain77:
And to think we have wasted all these years under the misguided assumption we actually had to explain a effect.
Sometimes the term "effect" is defined to be a consequence of something, in which case all effects have causes by definition. But I'll assume that by "effect" you mean "event". In modern science, your assumption is, in fact, generally regarded as misguided. But you're in good company. Even Einstein couldn't shake the "inner voice" telling him that there must be hidden variables causing the particle to go through slit A rather than slit B.R0b_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

Clive, I love Billy Preston.
Most people know what “nothing” means, it seems that the denial of the meaning of the word only comes in when there is something else at stake, that is not willing to be conceded because of prior philosophical commitments.
I haven't denied any meaning of the word. I've asked questions in an effort to resolve ambiguities. I'll ask the same questions again: Which of the following must be absent in order for there to be "nothing": - matter - energy - quantum wave functions - state - events - regularities - statistical regularities (check as many as apply)R0b_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

Gaz,
Most people THINK they know what “nothing” means – actually, in physics, “nothing” is very complex. We touched on this in the thread you (very sensibly) gavelled, but QM means “nothing” is not the simple absence of anything that most people expect.
Then physicists, like evolutionists, make up their own meanings for words to suit their discipline. Nothing means what it has always meant, nothing at all whatsoever. True nothing, if you will.Clive Hayden_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler:
Aw jeez, are we back to playing that tired old game again? Why don’t you spare me the trouble and tell me what you think an “operational concept” (whatever that is) for information is. Then I will be happy to destoy naturalism using your definition.
I didn't say "operational concept", I said "operational definition". The classical operational definition of information is Σp*log(p). Algorithmic information, on the other hand, has no general operational definition, since its quantification is non-computable. The claim that "X cannot generate information" is testable in classical info theory, given input and output probability distributions. We simply do the math. In algorithmic information theory, if X is a computational process, then by definition it cannot generate algorithmic information. In both frameworks, quantified information is a property of a model. Only indirectly, through the model, is it a property of a physical thing. This means that a given physical thing can have different quantities of information depending on how you model it. Maybe that's one reason that archaeologists and detectives don't infer design from the existence or quantity of information in a given thing, but rather from the content of the information. You're welcome to "destroy naturalism" using the classical definition of information, but I'm not very interested in such endeavors.R0b_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

gaz you state: Most people THINK they know what “nothing” means – actually, in physics, “nothing” is very complex. no gaz I know exactly what nothing means it means the absence of everything, especially complexity. The true meaning of the word nothing should not even be defined,,, i.e. when you look nothing up in the dictionary it should be blank after the word,,, what I am also sure of is that you have a severely twisted view of what nothing truly is. Are you going to insist that you don't have a twisted view and that I just don't understand the "complexity of Nothing",,, That is called living in denial gaz...bornagain77_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

And gaz do you hold that whales evolved from land creatures? If so please show us where Richard Sternberg went astray in his finding that it is impossible. Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203bornagain77_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

Clive that is one cool song: Billy Preston - Nothing from nothing 1975 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_DV54ddNHEbornagain77_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden (141), Most people THINK they know what "nothing" means - actually, in physics, "nothing" is very complex. We touched on this in the thread you (very sensibly) gavelled, but QM means "nothing" is not the simple absence of anything that most people expect.Gaz_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden (124), I'm not clear what your point is, but to answer the obvious questions - there is no necessity for animals to have turned out the way they did, and if evolution started over again it certainly would not roll out the same way. Nor do I entirely understand your plasticity question - as far as I could ascertain you seem to say that, in evolution, there are some things that change and others that can't. That is certainly true, simply because certain features of an organism are essential and the cost of evolving something else isn't worthwhile. An example: all marine mammals have lungs, rather than gills (a relic of their land-dwelling ancestry). That certainly isn't likely to change, despite the benefits of gills allowing them to stay submerged longer, because to evolve gills would be hideously expensive in terms of resources (i.e. food), they would still need lungs whilst gills evolved and lungs are far more efficient at extracting oxygen than gills. So some things evolve easily, others are essnetial and the cost of evolving doesn't make it worthwhile for the species.Gaz_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

R0b,
Obviously, “nothing” can mean different things to different people in different contexts.
Haven't you ever heard the song, "Nothing from nothing leaves nothing, you gotta have something, if you wanna be with me" by Billy Preston? Most people know what "nothing" means, it seems that the denial of the meaning of the word only comes in when there is something else at stake, that is not willing to be conceded because of prior philosophical commitments.Clive Hayden_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

bornagain77:
Exactly what is the payoff for you to defend, purely by rhetorical ploys, a theory that is not even true in the first place?
Ignoring the question-begging in that query, where have I tried to defend any theory? My points to you have been very narrow, and they deal with your statements. But you won't even acknowledge, much less respond to, most of the challenges and questions I put to you. The question is not why I'm allegedly defending something, but rather why you are not defending your own statements. You speak of a mathematical necessity, but you can't provide the math to back it up. You claim that degradation of information is captured in Marks and Dembski's COI, but you can't explain how information loss can occur under the conditions of their COI. You won't even answer a simple yes-or-no question on what you mean by "functional information". As you don't seem very concerned about the accuracy of what you say, I'll stop pestering you.R0b_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply