Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Michael Denton Flashback — Grasping the Reality of Life

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Like Michael Behe, I read a book by another Michael. Behe and I had the same reaction: Why haven’t we heard any of this stuff before? The answer is that questioning Darwinian orthodoxy essentially represents committing suicide in academia — an institution that promotes tolerance, diversity, free thought, and skepticism as the highest virtues — but which punishes any deviation from Darwinian dogma with draconian suppression, no matter how logical or evidential the challenges might be.

Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, challenged that dogma, with no theological or philosophical precommitment as far as I can tell. I would encourage everyone with intellectual curiosity to read that book.

The following I find to be one of his most revealing observations concerning the reality of life:

To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter, so each atom in it would be the size of a tennis ball, and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the portholes of a vast spaceship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. We would see endless highly organized corridors and conduits branching in every direction away from the perimeter of the cell, some leading to the central memory bank in the nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing units. The nucleus itself would be a vast spherical chamber more than a kilometer in diameter, resembling a geodesic dome inside of which we would see, all neatly stacked together in ordered arrays, the miles of coiled chains of the DNA molecules. A huge range of products and raw materials would shuttle along all the manifold conduits in a highly ordered fashion to and from all the various assembly plants in the outer regions of the cell.

We would wonder at the level of control implicit in the movement of so many objects down so many seemingly endless conduits, all in perfect unison. We would see all around us, in every direction we looked, all sorts of robot-like machines… We would see that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices used for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction… However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not equaled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours…

Unlike our own pseudo-automated assembly plants, where external controls are being continually applied, the cell’s manufacturing capability is entirely self-regulated…

[Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler, 1986, pp. 327 – 331.]

Comments
And even still, after knowing that a semiotic information system must be accounted for (because that is the way we find it), there is no accounting for it. It's much easier to tell the tale than to worry about the details.Upright BiPed
November 10, 2011
November
11
Nov
10
10
2011
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
' And again, missing from any such history is natural selection. For such a history to make sense there must be some indication of why each individual, incremental genetic change was selected or “drifted” into place. Those details are universally absent. At best they are inserted after-the-fact, and applied to more significant phenotypic variations, not to underlying genetic increments.' ScottAndrews2; Are you saying that "the faster cat gets the prey, and lives to screw another day" doesn't describe 'molecular evolutionary contributions to macrophenotypical reality in any kind of realistic fashion? THIS IS SHEAR BLASHEMY. DR REC WHERE ARE YOU TO DEFEND THE TRUTH? THIS IS PREPOSTEROUS...... YOU LYING FOOL.bpragmatic
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT
It's actually been several hundred years since animal breeders figured out the process works. It's been over 15 decades since science understood the wider ramifications to all life, and almost 7 decades since the specific mechanisms were discovered.GinoB
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT
Do you admit that once we get imperfect self replicators subject to differential selection and carrying forward heritable traits, we have a mechanism for increasing information?GinoB
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
GinoB,
The overall information in the entire gene pool thereby *accumulates and increases* in small increments, generation by generation, over time. Been about 15 decades since science worked that out.
Impressive, since it's only been 11 decades since the connection between chromosomes and heredity was discovered.ScottAndrews2
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
GB, without the semiotic information system that supports heredity there is no random genetic variation. There is no drift or HGT or gene pool. Perhaps the high relevance of this fact did not occur to you.Upright BiPed
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
Even if we were to grant you this theoretical narrative, that still would not explain the origin of biological information.bbigej
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
And what is this universal principle you speak of?
It's called addition. As in 1+1+1+1+1=5.
Why have astronauts visited the moon and not Mars? By your principle, they only need to do what they have already done, just many times over.
The reasons we haven't visited Mars yet are purely logistical; food, water, fuel to keep people alive for several years. There's no macig barrier that makes it impossible to go. Humans have sent numerous autonomous spacecraft there, even driven a rover on its surface.
It quickly becomes apparent that a ladder is poor illustration. One step does not always lead to more steps.
I'd be most appreciative if you could please tell me the barrier that makes it impossible for micro-evolutionary changes to accumulate over time into macro-evolutionary change.GinoB
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed
Cabal, the ladder in biology is the existence of semiosis (heritable information recorded in a system of symbols). If you’ll provide a rational explanation of your ladder, then I am all ears.
Because of random genetic variations (genetic mutations, genetic drift, HGT) every generation has slightly different *potentially* heritable information in its gene pool than its ancestors did. The different information that provides an advantage gets selected and *is* inherited, passed to subsequent generations. The overall information in the entire gene pool thereby *accumulates and increases* in small increments, generation by generation, over time. Been about 15 decades since science worked that out.GinoB
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
I'm actually at a conference currently. I'll probably have some time to reply waiting in the airport on the way home. By the way, Eocene, this is the second or third time you've mentioned something personal about me-where else I post, other hobbies of mine. Twice you've brought up gaming, which make me think you googled my naem, and found this user: http://www.xfire.com/profile/drrec/ I'll just point out that not every "drrec" online is me. I don't game. I live in the US. I think it is a bit creepy you are apparently sleuthing around the internet and trying to dig up dirt, or expose my identity. It makes me really hesitant to post here, given your and other's general incivility.DrREC
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
Cabal, the ladder in biology is the existence of semiosis (heritable information recorded in a system of symbols). If you'll provide a rational explanation of your ladder, then I am all ears.Upright BiPed
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
Cabal, You're begging the question.
I can walk 100 meters straight up if I use a ladder. One step at a time is what does the trick. Is it too hard to understand the universal principle that small steps can take you a long way?
In this case no one knows if there is a one hundred meter ladder or if the ladder is even a possibility. Describing any biological configuration as something that can be reached by climbing a series of accessible steps is begging the question. And what is this universal principle you speak of? Why have astronauts visited the moon and not Mars? By your principle, they only need to do what they have already done, just many times over. It quickly becomes apparent that a ladder is poor illustration. One step does not always lead to more steps.ScottAndrews2
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
“IOW YOU need evidence that blind, undirected processes can produce fsci over the UPB.” I find arguments like that quite off target. Let me make an analogy: I can walk 100 meters straight up if I use a ladder. One step at a time is what does the trick. Is it too hard to understand the universal principle that small steps can take you a long way?Cabal
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PDT
bpragmatic: "I wonder why Dr. REc doesn’t respond to your comments at post at 21211." ==== It's probably attending to more important world shaking matters like conquering made up imagined empires over at "Civilization Fanatics" playroom.Eocene
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT
bpragmatic,
Are you suggesting that there are various kinds of biologically significant chemical and/or molecular and/or genetic etc component relationships and interactions etc within the system that would be subject to a myriad of different “selection” (and also anti-selection}pressures that would have to be identified, quantified at various “levels” in order to give RM and NS any kind of real legitimacy?
I don't think he's suggesting that, I think he's outright asserting it.Clive Hayden
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews2 Regarding your comment from above: "And again, missing from any such history is natural selection. For such a history to make sense there must be some indication of why each individual, incremental genetic change was selected or “drifted” into place. Those details are universally absent." Are you suggesting that there are various kinds of biologically significant chemical and/or molecular and/or genetic etc component relationships and interactions etc within the system that would be subject to a myriad of different "selection" (and also anti-selection}pressures that would have to be identified, quantified at various "levels" in order to give RM and NS any kind of real legitimacy? Why this is an outrage! Please clarify what you mean. I wonder why Dr. REc doesn't respond to your comments at post at 21211.bpragmatic
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
Dr Rec, It's hardly a "restatement of the same inference" except in the trivial sense that they both lead to an inference to agency involvement. Surely you're not suggesting that one valid inference leading to another must be expected to imply something else in order to be valid. That doesn't even make sense. No, this is unmistakably just more of the same avoidance routine you've employed to deal with the content of my post. What I gave you was a list of the observable physical entailments that are required for any recorded information to exist. By observing those same physical entailments in the processing of recorded genomic information, those entailments have been satisfied, and therefore a central prediction of ID has been positively identified. The information in DNA presents a semioptic state. Calling that a restatement of FSCI isn't going to cut it.Upright BiPed
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
Dr REC, The OoL is KEY because if life was designed then it is a safe bet that evolution is a design process-> organisms were designed to evolve and evolved by design. OTOH if living organisms arose from non-living matter via blind, undirected chemical processes, then by Newton's First Rule, design is a non-starter.Joseph
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
DrREC:
Evolution would predict small increases in fsci below the universal probability bound-which seems to include enzymes and protein domains, from KF’s reference.
Which evolution "predicts" this and why: 1- front-loaded evolution 2- intelligent design evolution 3- blind watchmaker evolution And which proteins and enzymes have been observed to form via blind, undirected chemical processes outside of a living organism? As for spontaneous and fsci- all we know is that it takes intelligence- ie agency- to produce it- that is take mere complexity/ shannon information and make fsci out of it. We don't know if it was instant, took minutes, hours, days, years- whatever. The point is your position can't account for it, period.Joseph
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
DrREC,
Gradual increases in fsci, speciation, etc. are observed. The past can be inferred from observation of sequences, and reconstruction of ancestral proteins.
I'm afraid you're begging the question. Whether a change of 500 bits of fsci can be achieved through incremental changes is one of the central questions. It has yet to be admitted into evidence. If the past can be traced, as you say, then where is the step-by-step reconstruction of any macroevolutionary change? Wouldn't that bring this to an and really quick? And again, missing from any such history is natural selection. For such a history to make sense there must be some indication of why each individual, incremental genetic change was selected or "drifted" into place. Those details are universally absent. At best they are inserted after-the-fact, and applied to more significant phenotypic variations, not to underlying genetic increments. The difficulty for mutation and selection, drift, etc., to combine even a few variations the way an intelligent mind effortlessly imagines and assembles a whole comprised of pieces does not instantly invalidate your extrapolation. But it does rule out taking it for granted and casts it in a very poor light. Substantial new evidence would be required to make it even plausible. Again, inference and extrapolation. They have in common the challenge of supposing what no one has ever observed. But the extrapolation is thoroughly undermined by the available evidence. I wouldn't say rule it out, but it's not ready for enshrinement or even prime time. It's hard to believe they even teach kids this stuff.ScottAndrews2
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
"If every ID post, and “teach the controversy” politician led with “ID is not a critique of evolution. It is a guess about abiogenesis based on inference to human design, despite the non-observation of biological design by any calculable metric.”" Of course many ID proponents and theorists are critical of evolution as a whole, but ID theory itself only pertains to specific features found in nature (such as CSI, IC, Universal fine-tuning, etc). In principle, it is not opposed to common descent. See the definition of intelligent design (per ID.org): "the theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Note the qualifier, "certain features." Furthermore, ID isn't a "guess about abiogenesis", it is a legitimate scientific inference based on observed causes and effects found in nature, the same type of inference made by other historical scientists in other disciplines. It doesn't matter if we've never "observed biological design" (but does Venter's work count?). Design is, at the very least, a live possibility pertaining to the origin of life. Moreover, the concept of CSI transcends biology, and features found within the cell manifest the same type of properties found in objects known to be designed. This is why intelligent design is the *best* explanation for the origin of complex, specified information.bbigej
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
"Stephen Meyer’s thesis pertains only to the origin of life." If every ID post, and "teach the controversy" politician led with "ID is not a critique of evolution. It is a guess about abiogenesis based on inference to human design, despite the non-observation of biological design by any calculable metric." I'd be happy, and stop posting here.DrREC
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
"IOW YOU need evidence that blind, undirected processes can produce fsci over the UPB." Why? Evolution would predict small increases in fsci below the universal probability bound-which seems to include enzymes and protein domains, from KF's reference. This despite no one actually calculating fits for a protein of decent size, only estimating from know sequences or mutational experiments that fall far short of exploring all of sequence space. "Also ID does not require spontaneous increase in fsci over the UPB" Isn't that how KF et al. infers design?DrREC
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Umm that wasn't a definition of the theory- that is what you were supposed to provide evidence for. IOW YOU need evidence that blind, undirected processes can produce fsci over the UPB. Also ID does not require spontaneous increase in fsci over the UPB.Joseph
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
2.1.1.1.3 Upright BiPedNovember 8, 2011 at 10:27 am "Dr Rec, I gave you the logic behind the call – the fact that it is symbolically-recorded information itself. I gave you the physically-observable entailments of such information." That is just another restatement of the same inference.DrREC
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Contrastive. Your theory has no rational basis in observation, so you try to make it sound like evolution has the same problem. Sadly this is false. Gradual increases in fsci, speciation, etc. are observed. The past can be inferred from observation of sequences, and reconstruction of ancestral proteins. So what is more logical-that the process we observe now operated in the past, or the invention of a whole new process that has no empirical observation. A question I'd have to ask myself if I was an ID supporter-If species are continuing to change, why aren't we observing design (increases in fsci >500 bits at once)?DrREC
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
"Strange, I didn’t provide any definition of the tehory of evolution in that post." Sorry, I think you were attempting a comeback so fast you didn't read what you wrote: "Give me a single observation of the theory of evolution(biological fsci over the universal probability bound arising)" What is contained inside parenthetical is usually are qualifying or defining what preceded. At any rate, evolution would not require a spontaneous increase in fsci over the universal probability bound. ID would.DrREC
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
Dr Rec, I gave you the logic behind the call - the fact that it is symbolically-recorded information itself. I gave you the physically-observable entailments of such information. Your theory doesn't even have a mechanism to get the ball in play. You simply blew it off and said it was irrelevant. Apparently in your search for the truth of reality, there is empirical evidence that you simply don't like, don't want to deal with, and will not engage in.Upright BiPed
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
DrREC,
Now by what logic do we determine a process for which there is “no such observation ever?” explains the past, instead of the process (evolution) which we currently observe?
The statement "no observation ever" applies equally to intelligent design and the process of evolution. No greater increase in information can be attributed to natural selection than can be attributed to instances of artificial selection. That leaves us with the question, which is a more satisfactory, realistic explanation? We have an inference and an extrapolation. Both require that we reason beyond what we can observe. The inference draws on an overabundance of observation and evidence. What is missing is evidence of significant design in the specific form of biological life. I have no problem conceding that. It is worth noting that historically, intelligent design has not been limited to one or a few mediums. In fact, at present, it reaches out to design the very thing in question, living things. The extrapolation draws on observations specific to biology, but doesn't have much else going for it. There's scarcely even a hypothesis as to how it could or did produce variations beyond a limited range. To date, the difference between the output of known design and known evolution are about exactly what one would expect. One makes innovative leaps and moves toward planned objectives while the other changes colors, shapes, and sizes, and often as not changes them back. Forget about direct observation. There is none. There is an inference and an extrapolation. Neither gives a very detailed picture, but our existence dictates that at least one is almost certainly correct. I feel that one makes a much stronger case. I'll admit that I have reason for bias. I don't seek to change everyone's mind. But in view of the above reasoning there is no basis for dogmatically elevating evolution over design. I'm more interested in relaxing that dogmatism than in winning the argument.ScottAndrews2
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
DrREC:
So again, what is the observation in the present of the production of “vast amounts of complex, specified information” at once that would allow us to infer ID operated in the past?
What is the observation in the present of macroevolution taking place using along neo-Darwinian mechanisms that would allow us to infer that neo-Darwinian mechanisms operated in the past, and so, bringing about macroevolution?PaV
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply