Saturday Fun: Adapa’s DDS on Display

_{Barry Arrington

November 22, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

Sometimes an example of Darwinist Derangement Syndrome (see UD’s glossary) is just too delicious to allow it to languish deep in a comment thread. Here’s an exchange between Adapa and WJM in the Way Forward thread:

First, Adapa claims that science has “conclusively demonstrated” that unguided evolution can produce observed diversity of life:

Adapa @99:

. . . science has already conclusively demonstrated that the observed natural process of random genetic variations filtered by selection and retaining heritable traits is sufficient to produce the biological life variations we see today . . .

@ 587 William J Murray disagrees and says unless a P(T|H) calculation can be made for a naturally occurring biological phenomenon “evolution cannot be vetted as ‘unguided.’”

@ 590 Adapa then says it is “idiotic” to demand that science prove that unguided forces are sufficent:

This bit of idiocy seems to be WJM’s latest favorite – the demand that science prove evolution isn’t guided.

And that it is dumb to ask science to prove a negative:

Why an armchair philosopher would be dumb enough to demand science prove a negative is anyone’s guess.

But, in the first quote, that’s exactly what Adapa claims science has done – proven the very negative he claims is stupid and dumb to expect science to do! Adapa claims science has proven that evolution is unguided, and when WJM asked him to show him where, Adapa says that it is stupid and dumb to expect science to prove evolution is unguided!!

Comments

GEM 66: //"As you full well know, further, I do not hold power of banning. "// A lie of omission is still a lie. And you are lying. You may not be able to block a person from commenting based on user name. But you certainly have the power, and use it frequently, to block an IP address from posting comments, which is the same as banning someone. You must be wearing asbestos underwear. Are you honest enough to admit this? Probably not.gmilling_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

HeKS: Sorry. My cross-posting may not have clarified things as much as I'd hoped. :P I was equating random to being apparently unguided, but you are probably more correct to present the equations as random = unguided and apparently random = apparently unguided. The downside to this is that most theists must then speak in terms of apparently random processes, which becomes a bit unwieldy.Phinehas_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

SA:
It’s a subtle point, but I think ID advocates say that some things “are random”. By that, they don’t mean that they know they are necessarily “unguided”.
This is a subtle point, and there are different ways to think about it. For instance, you've got designed randomness in genetic algorithms. But here the randomness isn't really guided itself so much as it is carefully constrained and used. Given different perspectives, I think you can make a valid case for this randomness being both guided and unguided, but arguing for it being guided requires taking a step back and viewing the context. The more you get down into the purely random part, the more the "guided" label becomes nonsensical, since random means: proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern. Even here, however, I'm not totally comfortable with this particular definition. I'd probably prefer something like: proceeding, made, or occurring without apparent aim, reason, or pattern. After all, science is provisional, and we may not yet know definitively that a given process has no aim, reason, or pattern. So, for me, to say that something is random is to say that, provisionally (based on the information available), it is unguided, which I think is pretty much what HeKS was saying (though I don't wish to speak for him).Phinehas_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

@Phinehas #156 You're exactly right. If you say that something is random, you're necessarily saying that it is unguided and, typically, purposeless. Saying that something appears to be random, and even choosing to provisionally accept that it may very well be random, is not the same thing as claiming that it is. Furthermore, and perhaps even more importantly, allowing that something really is random does not necessarily mean that the randomness itself is purposeless. A randomizing process can be a functional feature of a designed system, as any programmer knows. It is therefore perfectly sensible to suggest that a system can be guided to use a randomizing function to achieve a particular purpose. Of course, I think all this stuff can be discussed in my new OP.HeKS_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

Learned Hand: As I see it, ID argues that evolution itself is guided, but has been very careful not to get into a discussion about how that guidance might have happened.
It's even 'worse', ID doesn't even hold a position on evolution. ID isn't a theory about everything. ID is about detecting design, that's all. Certain views can follow logically (or less logically) from detecting design in nature, however those views are not part of ID.Box_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

160 was for Phinehas @156Silver Asiatic_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

@WJM #134 and @logically_speaking #99 The new OP is up here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/heks-continues-to-suggest-a-way-forward-on-the-ks-bomb-argument/HeKS_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

I don’t think that ID says this or that HeKS was saying this. If you take the word “appear” out of your statement and replace it with “are” however, it tends to become true by definition, doesn’t it? I think this is the point HeKS is making.
It's a subtle point, but I think ID advocates say that some things "are random". By that, they don't mean that they know they are necessarily "unguided". For myself, I think it's a mistake to equate random and unguided. If an evolutionist says that there is evidence that something is unguided, then that's unproven and untestable. If the evolutionist says something is random, that's the same thing we say. It doesn't necessarily mean "unguided".Silver Asiatic_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

Random with respect to fitness is misleading. Even directed mutations may appear random with respect to fitness
What?wd400_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

Random with respect to fitness is misleading. Even directed mutations may appear random with respect to fitness. And somatic changes demonstrate that individuals do evolve. I will look into the references pertaining to germ-line changes but from memory much of it refers to using the same existing genes in a new way or even just getting those genes turned on- evo-devo within a population to exploit existing variation (think neoteny type stuff)Joe_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

On the non-randomness of mutations:
Shapiro has developed an understanding of evolution that takes account of the integrated complexity of organisms as well as the importance of nonrandom mutations and variations in the evolutionary process. He observes that organisms within a population often modify themselves in response to different environmental challenges. He cites evidence showing that when populations are challenged by environmental stresses, signals, or triggers, organisms do not generate mutations or make genetic changes randomly, that is, without respect to, or unguided by, their survival needs. Instead, they often respond to environmental stresses or signals by inducing mutations in a directed or regulated way. As he explains, “The continued insistence on the random nature of genetic change by evolutionists should be surprising for one simple reason: empirical studies of the mutational process have inevitably discovered patterns, environmental influences, and specific biological activities at the roots of novel genetic structures and altered DNA sequences.”55 The depth of Shapiro’s challenge to orthodox neo-Darwinism is profound. He rejects the randomness of novel variation that Darwin himself emphasized and that neo-Darwinian theorists throughout the twentieth century have reaffirmed.56 Instead, he favors a view of the evolutionary process that emphasizes preprogrammed adaptive capacity or “engineered” change, where organisms respond in a “cognitive” way to environmental influences, rearranging or mutating their genetic information in regulated ways to maintain viability. As an example, Shapiro notes that—contrary to the neo-Darwinian assumption that “DNA alterations are accidental”57—all organisms possess sophisticated cellular systems for proofreading and repairing their DNA during its replication. He notes that these systems are “equivalent to a quality-control system in human manufacturing,” where the “surveillance and correction” functions represent “cognitive processes, rather than mechanical precision.”58 As an example of regulated mutation, Shapiro observes that in response to environmental assault—UV damage from sunlight or the presence of an antibiotic, for instance—bacteria activate what is known as the “SOS response” system. This system makes use of specialized error-prone DNA polymerases, normally left unexpressed, that are synthesized and set into action, allowing the population to generate a much wider range of genetic variation than usual. Bacterial cells regulate this process using a DNA-binding protein known as LexA, which normally represses the error-prone polymerases. When the SOS system is activated by environmental damage, the production of LexA first drops dramatically, allowing expression of the error-prone polymerases, but then rises, which “ensures that as soon as DNA repair occurs . . . LexA [will] reaccumulate and repress the SOS genes.”59 This system allows cells to “replicate DNA that carries unrepaired damage,”60 keeping their essential replication machinery moving past a stall, in the absence of which the bacterium would die. An analogy may help to illustrate what the cell is doing when confronted with an environmental challenge. Imagine a military unit, a combined armor and infantry battalion, crossing an open plain. Suddenly, the battalion falls under a fierce, unrelenting enemy artillery barrage, wounding many of its soldiers. To keep the wounded alive until the barrage ceases or reinforcements arrive, the commander instructs certain members of the unit with destructive skills to disassemble (in military jargon, “cannibalize”) a few of the tanks to provide temporary armored cover from further incoming shells. His order tells them, however, to cease their tank-modifying actions as soon as the barrage ends. That is, the unit as a whole tolerates “damage” to some of its equipment to save as many of its members as possible. In the same way, while at one level their “error-prone” role may appear counterintuitive, these mutation-generating DNA polymerases of the SOS system actually constitute essential hardware in the cell’s defensive armory.61 From Shapiro’s perspective, this survival strategy does not exemplify Darwinian randomness, but rather sophisticated preprogramming, an “apparatus that even the smallest cells possess” to maintain viability.62 What’s more, the carefully regulated expression of the SOS response provides evidence that cells employ the system only when needed.63 [ Darwin's Doubt, Ch. 16, NATURAL GENETIC ENGINEERING ]
Box_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

SA:
ID cannot state that things that appear random (microevolution) are unguided.
I don't think that ID says this or that HeKS was saying this. If you take the word "appear" out of your statement and replace it with "are" however, it tends to become true by definition, doesn't it? I think this is the point HeKS is making.Phinehas_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

LH said:
WJM took a much more radical approach. He complains that scientists don’t vet their assumptions, and he’s explicit “that the issue here isn’t what ID claims” but rather the essential assumption of the negative. In other words, at least as I read him, scientists should be questioning whether RM and NS are unguided even without anyone providing a case to the contrary.
Random Mutation and Natural Selection as concepts are unguided by definition. The question has not ever been if random mutation and natural selection exist at all or are forces that cause effects in evolution, but if they are causally adequate to explain biodiversity. Adapa insisted they had been proven by science to be causally adequate. You took up that argument. Gravity is causally adequate to explain many paths, but it is not causally adequate in explaining the maneuverings of an intelligently guided craft. Gravity still affects the craft; gravity is accounted for in the maneuverings of the craft; gravity is still not a causally adequate explanation for the path of the craft. Your assumptions don't just treat RM & NS as assumed contributing factors which may be incomplete without some intelligent guidance involved, but as wholly sufficient in themselves to account for the result in question. Assuming that natural selection and random mutation exist is categorically not the same as assuming they are causally adequate in producing a particular outcome that is under debate.William J Murray_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

I know what Shapiro thinks -- I want to see the evidence that mutations are not random (with respect to fitness). The somatic (i.e. not heritable so not much to do with evolution) hypermutation is non-random with regard to where the mutations happen, but not to wether the mutations are the "right ones" (in fact, it's a round of selection that does that!)wd400_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

Citation- "Evolution" A View from the 21st Century"- see also the immune system responses. See also the SOS response. See also quorum sensing. Then there is "Not BY Chance" and "The Evolution Revolution"- all referenced.Joe_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

LH:
What you’re presenting is the ID argument that there is a reason to suspect the specific assumption that RM and NS are unguided.
That is incorrect. Natural selection is unguided. What we don't know is if all mutations are random/ unguided. The science indicates they are not. Back in 1997 Dr Spetner wrote "Not BY Chance" that challenged that assumption and now he has the evidence to support it. Dr Spetner argues the evolution happens by "built-in responses to environmental cues". Geez LH the book came out in 1997. It's very telling that you obviously don't have a clue as to what is even being debated.Joe_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

But science has demonstrated not all mutations are random... I've been trying to say "unguided" rather than "random." Apologies if I slipped up.Learned Hand_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

But science has demonstrated not all mutations are random.
[citation needed]wd400_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

But science has demonstrated not all mutations are random. And radiometric decay is not random because not all elements have the same probability of decaying- you know the same way natural selection is not random. ;) But anyway rad decay occurs because the universe is intelligently designed to be dynamic. It wasn't a whim of nature to produce such elements. As for random mutations LH thinks it can just ignore the evidence and press on regardless. There's a term for people like that...Joe_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

Box, Again, while I disagree with your conclusions, your approach is a lot more rational than WJM's (which I don't think anyone else here shares). But your excerpt raises another nebulous part of the argument. Are we discussing whether it's reasonable to assume that evolution is unguided, or whether mutation and natural selection are unguided? I've been assuming the latter, based on that language you quoted (or something like it). As I see it, ID argues that evolution itself is guided, but has been very careful not to get into a discussion about how that guidance might have happened. The ID arguments that people rely on don't have to do with whether mutation and natural selection themselves are guided--that would be a much more specific, and much weaker, claim. In other words, even if we take the general ID claim at face value, I'm not sure that calls into question whether mutations are guided or natural selection is actually artificial selection.Learned Hand_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

HeKS @ 144
Perhaps. And yet, to say that the mutations are random is to say that they aren’t guided or purposefully determined or directed.
I think that assumption causes the problem that Adapa, Keith S and others have latched onto. Random, guided and unguided - with regards to a Designer of some kind, are not questions directly accessible by science. Do ID advocates assert that "microevolution" is real and the product of random mutations? I think Behe, Denton and others affirm that. So, quoting what you said: "to say that the mutations are random is to say that they aren’t guided or purposefully determined or directed". This is a problem, however. If we then say that "macro-evolution" shows evidence of Intelligent Design (a Designer), then we have some aspects of the development of life "guided" (macroevolution) and others "unguided", microevolution. We are now claiming to know what the Designer actually guided or not. It can't work that way, as I see it. ID posits that there is positive evidence of a designer in some aspects of nature. ID cannot state that things that appear random (microevolution) are unguided. To do that, we'd have to prove exactly what we're demanding that Adapa prove - that evolution is unguided. If we say it's random, then we're supposedly saying it's "unguided" - so we'd have to prove that assumption.Silver Asiatic_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

I've tried to tell you lads: You can't get a quart into a pint jar. Or make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. To mention but two, WJM and KF are heavy-hitters. And they are arguing with not very bright school-boys.Axel_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

Learned Hand #143, The 'null hypothesis' should always be 'we don't know' - not "guided" or "unguided". However, without assumptions we cannot do science and little else. So, given methodological naturalism, it's prudent to initially assume mutations are unguided - meanwhile we should not forget about 'we don't know'! But in 2014 we are well beyond such an initial assumption. When someone states today:
science has already conclusively demonstrated that the observed natural process of random genetic variations filtered by selection and retaining heritable traits - unguided evolution - is sufficient to produce the biological life variations we see today
... he cannot refer to the initial assumption under methodological naturalism. Today it is an unsupported statement of another kind.Box_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

@Silver Asiatic #135
HeKS @124
To say that the mutations are “random” is to say that they aren’t guided or purposefully determined or directed.
We don’t know that and you can’t prove it. What we see as random may well be guided and directed.
Perhaps. And yet, to say that the mutations are random is to say that they aren’t guided or purposefully determined or directed.HeKS_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Sorry Box, from my perspective I did address it. Let me explain: What you're presenting is the ID argument that there is a reason to suspect the specific assumption that RM and NS are unguided. In other words, we started with the null hypothesis, but due to CSI and irreducible complexity and whatever else, now we have to revisit it. I obviously disagree that those specific ID propositions are sound. But you're taking a logical approach: start with the null hypothesis and hold it until there's a good reason to reconsider it. (I'm being a little sloppy with the phrase "null hypothesis"; all I mean is the kind of negative assumption we're talking about, such as that natural forces are unguided.) So our only disagreement there is whether ID has presented a good enough case to be considered a serious challenger to the default position that RM and NS are unguided. WJM took a much more radical approach. He complains that scientists don't vet their assumptions, and he's explicit "that the issue here isn’t what ID claims" but rather the essential assumption of the negative. In other words, at least as I read him, scientists should be questioning whether RM and NS are unguided even without anyone providing a case to the contrary. That's why I keep analogizing it to Intelligent Falling and Intelligent Radiation (which, to be clear, I realize are not real positions). If it's the obligation of scientists to test the negative assumptions first, then they can't just assume radiometric decay is random. Obviously no one wants to take that position, but WJM's attempts to distinguish it from his have been quite weak. (Basically just incredulity, and the complaint that I'm assuming the conclusion--which doesn't make much sense if you can't distinguish the cases.) In other words, while I disagree with your position, it's orders of magnitude more rational that WJM's.Learned Hand_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

Learned Hand #141, You are being unresponsive to the argument presented. It has been argued that there is a difference between withholding the predicate "unguided" from evolution and withholding it from e.g. radiometric decay. The difference is that blind forces don't seem to be able to produce the fancy stuff in life, contrary to their ability to produce radiometric decay. You keep pretending that this argument is not on the table. Why is that? Don't you get it?Box_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

Intelligent Design advocate:
We cannot jusr assume all mutations are random. That would be assuming the very thing we need to determine.
Intelligent Radiation advocate:
We cannot jusr assume all radiometric decay is random. That would be assuming the very thing we need to determine.
Learned Hand_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

Thanks WJM, I'm going to leave the conversation there. I don't think your responses are going to get any more substantive.Learned Hand_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

LH said:
There’s nothing grudging about it–we assume that natural forces, from gravity to random mutation, are unguided. We’ve been very explicit and forthcoming about that.
No, you haven't - not until boxed in by my insistence over several days that you, Adapa and Keith support the assertion that science has conclusively demonstrated unguided evolution a causally adequate explanation for the phenomena in question. Then you admitted it was an assumption, and since then you've attempted to justify that assumption, largely via comparisons intended to ridicule anyone questioning the assumption.
If you don’t like an analogy, it’s better to explain why the analogy is wrong than just complain that you don’t like it. “I’m incredulous!” is not a very good argument.
I've already explained why the analogies are improper several times; they assume your conclusion and the very point under contention.William J Murray_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

Learned Hand: “Scientists don’t support their assumption that X is unguided.” X could be “random mutation” or “natural selection” or “gravity” or “radiometric decay” or “salt coming from the shaker.” What supports carving one of those out of the list, other than the fact that you really don’t want it to be there?
You seem to have already carved out “unguided evolution”. And rightly so. Carving out “unguided evolution” is supported by e.g. the fact that random mutation or natural selection cannot even account for the coming into existence of even one functional protein.Box_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply