Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ID Foundations, 14: “Islands” vs “Continents” of complex, specific function — a pivotal issue and debate

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In the current discussion on [Mis-]Representing Natural Selection, UD commenter Bruce David has posed a significant challenge:

A junkers Jumo 004 early Turbojet Engine (Courtesy, Wiki)

. . . it is not obvious that even with intelligence in the picture a major modification of a complex system is possible one small step at a time if there is a requirement that the system continue to function after each such step.

For example, consider a WWII fighter, say the P51 Mustang. Can you imagine any series of incremental changes that would transform it into a jet fighter, say the F80 and have the plane continue to function after each change? To transform a piston engine fighter in to a jet fighter requires multiple simultaneous changes for it to work–an entirely new type of engine, different engine placement, different location of the wings, different cockpit controls and dials, changes to the electrical system, different placement of the fuel tanks, new air intake systems, different materials to withstand the intense heat of the jet exhaust, etc., etc., etc. You can’t make these changes in a series of small steps and have a plane that works after each step, no matter how much intelligence is input into the process.

He then concludes:

Now both a P51 and an F80 are complex devices, but any living organism, from the simplest cell on up to a large multicellular plant or animal, is many orders of magnitude more complex than a fighter plane. If you believe that it is possible to transform a reptile with a bellows lung, solid bones and scales, say, into a bird with a circular flow lung, hollow bones, and feathers by a series of small incremental changes each of which not only results in a functioning organism, but a more “fit” one, then the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders, because the idea is absurd on the face of it.

In responding, UD Contributor gpuccio clarifies:

consider that engineered modifications can be implemented in a complex organism while retaining the old functionality, and then the new plan can be activated when everything is ready. I am not saying that’s the way it was done, but that it is possible.

For instance, and just to stay simple, one or more new proteins could be implemented using duplicated, non translated genes as origin. Or segments of non coding DNA. That’s, indeed, very much part of some darwinian scenarios.

The difference with an ID scenario is that, once a gene is duplicated and inactivated, it becomes non visible to NS. So, intelligent causes can very well act on it without any problem, while pure randomness, mutations and drift, will be free to operate in neutral form, but will still have the whole wall of probabilistic barriers against them.

[U/d, Dec 30] He goes on to later add:

NS acts as negative selection to keep the already existing information. We see the results of that everywhere in the proteome: the same function is maintained in time and in different species, even if the primary sequence can vary in time because of neutral variation. So, negative NS conserves the existing function, and allow only neutral or quasi neutral variation. In that sense it works againstany emergence of completely new information from the existing one, even if it can tolerate some limites “tweaking” of what already exists (microevolution).

I suppose that darwinists, or at least some of them, are aware of that difficulty as soon as one tries to explain completely new information, such as a new basic protein domain. Not only the darwinian theory cannot explain it, it really works against it.

So, the duplicated gene mechanism is invoked.

The problem is that the duplicated gene, to be free to vary and to leave the original functional island, must be no more translated and no more functional. Indeed, that happens very early in the history of a duplicated gene, because many forma of variation will completely inactivate it as a functional ORF, as we can see all the time with pseudogenes.

So, one of the two:

a) either the duplicated gene remains functional and contributes to the reproduction, so that negative NS can preserve it. In that case, it cannot “move” to new unrelated forms of function.

b) or the duplicated gene immediately becomes non functional, and is free to vary.

The important point is that case a) is completely useless to the darwinian explanation.

Case b) allows free transitions, but they are no more visible to NS, at least not until a new functional ORF (with the necessary regulatory sites) is generated. IOWs, all variation from that point on becomes neutral by definition.

But neutral variation, while free of going anywhere, is indeed free of going anywhere. That means: feedom is accompanied by the huge rising of the probability barriers. As we know, finding a new protein domain by chance alone is exactly what ID has shown to be empirically impossible.

In her attempted rebuttal, contributor Dr Elizabeth Liddle remarks:

I don’t find Behe’s argument that each phylum has a radically different “kernel” very convincing. Sure, prokaryotic cells and eukaryotic cells are different, but, as I said, we have at least one theory (symbiosis) that might explain that. And in any case for non-sexually reproducing organisms, “speciation” is a poor term – what we must postulate is cloning populations that clone along with their symbiotic inclusions. Which is perfectly possible (indeed even we “inherit” parental gut flora).

I think you are making the mistake of assuming that because “phyla” is a term that refers not only to the earliest exemplars of each phylum but also to the entire lineage from each, that those earliest exemplars were as different from each other as we, for example, are from trees, or bacteria. It’s really important to be clear when we are talking longitudinally (adaptation over time) and when laterally (subdivisions of populations into separate lineages).

This was largely in response to Dr V J Torley’s listing of evidence:

What evidence [for the distinctness of main body plans and for abrupt origin of same in the fossil record], Elizabeth? Please have a look here:

http://www.darwinsdilemma.org/pdf/faq.pdf
http://www.darwinsdilemma.org/
http://www.nature.com/news/eni…..ria-1.9714
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature

In “The Edge of Evolution”, Dr. Michael Behe argues that phyla were probably separately designed because each phylum has it own kernel that requires design. He also suggests that new orders (or families, or genera – he’s not yet sure which) are characterized by unique cell types, which he thinks must have been intelligently designed, because the number of protein factors in their gene regulatory network (about ten) well exceeds the number that might fall into place naturally (three).

This exchange pivots on the central issue: does complex, multi-part functionality come in easily accessible continents that can be spanned by an incrementally growing and branching tree, or does it normally come in isolated islands in beyond astronomical spaces dominated by seas of non-function, that the atomic level resources of our solar system (our effective universe) or of the observed cosmos as a whole cannot take more than a tiny sample of?

Let’s take the matter in steps of thought:

1 –> Complex, multi-part function depends on having several well-matched, correctly aligned and “wired together” parts that work together to carry out an overall task, i.e. we see apparently purposeful matching and organisation of multiple parts into a whole that carries out what seems to be a goal. The Junkers Jumo 004 Jet engine in the above image is a relevant case in point.

2 –> Ever since Wicken posed the following clip in 1979, this issue of wiring-diagram based complex functional organisation has been on the table as a characteristic feature of life forms that must be properly explained by any successful theory of the causal roots of life. Clip:

‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems.  Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms [[i.e. “simple” force laws acting on objects starting from arbitrary and common- place initial conditions] and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an [[originally . . . ] external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content . . . Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’ [[“The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 77 (April 1979): p. 353, of pp. 349-65. (Emphases and notes added. Nb: “originally” is added to highlight that for self-replicating systems, the blue print can be built-in.)]

3 –> The question at stake in the thread excerpted from above, is whether there can be an effective, incremental culling-out based on competition for niches and thence reproductive success of sub-populations that will create ever more complex systems that will then appear to have been designed.

4 –> Of course, we must notice that the implication of this claim is that we are dealing with in effect a vast continent of possible functional forms that can be spanned by a gradually branching tree. That’s a big claim, and it needs to be warranted on observational evidence, or it becomes little more than wishful thinking and grand extrapolation in service to an a priori evolutionary materialistic scheme of thought.

5 –> I cases where the function in question has an irreducible core of necessary parts, it is often suggested that something that may have had another purpose may simply find itself duplicated or fall out of use, then fit in with a new use. “Simple.”

6 –> NOT. For, such a proposal faces a cluster of challenges highlighted earlier in this UD series as posed by Angus Menuge [oops!] for the case of the flagellum:

For a working [bacterial] flagellum to be built by exaptation, the five following conditions would all have to be met:

C1: Availability. Among the parts available for recruitment to form the flagellum, there would need to be ones capable of performing the highly specialized tasks of paddle, rotor, and motor, even though all of these items serve some other function or no function.

C2: Synchronization. The availability of these parts would have to be synchronized so that at some point, either individually or in combination, they are all available at the same time.

C3: Localization. The selected parts must all be made available at the same ‘construction site,’ perhaps not simultaneously but certainly at the time they are needed.

C4: Coordination. The parts must be coordinated in just the right way: even if all of the parts of a flagellum are available at the right time, it is clear that the majority of ways of assembling them will be non-functional or irrelevant.

C5: Interface compatibility. The parts must be mutually compatible, that is, ‘well-matched’ and capable of properly ‘interacting’: even if a paddle, rotor, and motor are put together in the right order, they also need to interface correctly.

( Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science, pgs. 104-105 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004). HT: ENV.)

8 –> The number of biologically relevant cases where C1 – 5 has been observed: ZERO.

9 –> What is coming out ever more clearly is this:

when a set of matching components must be arranged so they can work together to carry out a task or function, this strongly constrains both the choice of individual parts and how they must be arranged to fit together

A jigsaw puzzle is a good case in point.

So is a car engine — as anyone who has had to hunt down a specific, hard to find part will know.

So are the statements in a computer program — there was once a NASA rocket that veered off course on launch and had to be destroyed by triggering the self-destruct because of — I think it was — a misplaced comma.

The letters and words in this paragraph are like that too.

That’s why (at first, simple level) we can usually quite easily tell the difference between:

A: An orderly, periodic, meaninglessly repetitive sequence: FFFFFFFFFF . . .

B: Aperiodic, evidently random, equally meaningless text: y8ivgdfdihgdftrs . . .

C: Aperiodic, but recognisably meaningfully organised sequences of characters: such as this sequence of letters . . .

In short, to be meaningful or functional, a correct set of core components have to match and must be properly arranged, and while there may be some room to vary, it is not true that just any part popped in in any number of ways can fit in.

As a direct result, in our general experience, and observation, if the functional result is complex enough, the most likely cause is intelligent choice, or design.  

This has a consequence. For, this need for choosing and correctly arranging then hooking up correct, matching parts in a specific pattern implicitly rules out the vast majority of possibilities and leads to the concept of islands of function in a vast sea of possible but meaningless and/or non-functional configurations.

10 –> Consequently, the normal expectation is that complex, multi-part functionality will come in isolated islands. So also, those who wish to assert an “exception” for biological functions like the avian flow-through lung, will need to  empirically warrant their claims. Show us, in short.

11 –> And, to do so will require addressing the difficulty posed by Gould in his last book, in 2002:

. . . long term stasis following geologically abrupt origin of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists. [The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002), p. 752.]

. . . .  The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section [[first occurrence] without obvious ancestors in the underlying beds, are stable once established and disappear higher up without leaving any descendants.” [p. 753.]

. . . . proclamations for the supposed ‘truth’ of gradualism – asserted against every working paleontologist’s knowledge of its rarity – emerged largely from such a restriction of attention to exceedingly rare cases under the false belief that they alone provided a record of evolution at all! The falsification of most ‘textbook classics’ upon restudy only accentuates the fallacy of the ‘case study’ method and its root in prior expectation rather than objective reading of the fossil record. [[p. 773.]

12 –> In that context, the point raised by GP above, that

. . .  once a gene is duplicated and inactivated, it becomes non visible to NS. So, intelligent causes can very well act on it without any problem, while pure randomness, mutations and drift, will be free to operate in neutral form, but will still have the whole wall of probabilistic barriers against them.

. . . takes on multiplied force.

___________

In short, the islands of function issue — rhetorical brush-asides notwithstanding — is real, and it counts.  Let us see how the evolutionary materialism advocates will answer to it. END

PS: I am facing a security headache, so this post was completed on a Linux partition. Linux is looking better than ever, just now. as a main OS . . .

Comments
Actually my first paragraph @411 is wrong, Genesis doesn't beg the question. It says "God did it." Then ID comes along, showing with some rigor, "Well somebody had to." What is significant, to me anyway, being confirmed both as a Christian and a non-scientist, isn't that both answers upset the materialists. Of course they do. Considering the predominance of their paradigm in science, the academy, and culture at large, what is significant is the dullness of their ripostes. Interesting times.jstanley01
August 5, 2012
August
08
Aug
5
05
2012
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
Evolutionary theory would produce nested hierarchies, no doubt, but so would the created kinds of Genesis. But in this context, so what? Both postulations beg the question posed by the original post in particular and by ID in general, "Whence the complexity?" Arguing on the basis of a nested hierarchy is relevant only to extent that the hierarchy being used "ascends" and "descends" along an axis that is relevant to the question. The axis that ID is concerned with runs from simple to complex, along which "islands" are not the exception, they are the rule. Against which cladistic proofs for common descent are not only utterly irrelevant, seeing them rehashed time and time again has become tedious in the extreme.jstanley01
August 3, 2012
August
08
Aug
3
03
2012
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
F/N: Kindly observe 326 above, as it is now numbered, which anticipates PG's objections. KFkairosfocus
May 8, 2012
May
05
May
8
08
2012
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
F/N: Cf what is now 14 above. See how it anticipates the pattern that developed and has now played out with a violation of confidence. KFkairosfocus
May 8, 2012
May
05
May
8
08
2012
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
Welcomekairosfocus
May 8, 2012
May
05
May
8
08
2012
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
KF, Great! Thanks.Eugene S
May 8, 2012
May
05
May
8
08
2012
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT
Dr Selensky, thanks for kind words. I have no control of that, but have collected the posts in a category, ID Foundations. Click the link and you will see all such posts in reverse chronological order, the numbered posts being of course the main series. (There are also several supplementary posts.) Onlookers may also find the IOSE draft course here on, helpful. The online notes accessible through my handle may also be helpful. Google books also has snippets of several major ID books. Do a Google search, then look under books. KFkairosfocus
May 8, 2012
May
05
May
8
08
2012
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
F/N; Kindly see my for the record follow-up post here. That includes a few remarks on the claimed substantial issue that put it in an utterly different light than is pretended to above in the comment I am responding to.kairosfocus
May 8, 2012
May
05
May
8
08
2012
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
KF, I suggest the "ID Foundations" posts be collected and placed under the Resources in the main menu, for ease of navigation, somewhere next to ID Defined. Thanks.Eugene S
May 8, 2012
May
05
May
8
08
2012
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT
F/N, for record: I have not been by this page for months, and when I visited just now, I saw:
401 Peter Griffin January 18, 2012 at 5:29 am BTW, the person who wrote that was asked by KF to stop mailing him. Funny how KF claims that nobody can provide an answer to his questions when he asks those very same people to stop communicating with him. Seems to me that one of the main weapons in the ID arsenal are fingers in ears.
This is totally twisted and irresponsible (and onlookers should recall that the threading of comments made it highly likely that when the thread was going, I would miss something like the above). I wish to remark: 1 --> Let the record reflect the truth: I asked Zachriel to cease and desist from further communication with me because -- in the teeth of my requests -- he violated confidentiality; which I discovered. I take that sort of misbehaviour very seriously indeed, for good reason. And any claim that the motivation was otherwise is false. 2 --> Now, this makes what I now see in a public forum even worse, for, obviously Zachriel and I were the two parties tot he exchange, so if a twisted version of why I terminated it has been released to the public, it is because of a FURTHER violation of the confidentiality of a personal email exchange, in the teeth of specific requests, and knowing that having found out violations I protested them. It therefore evident from this thread that he has twisted my request that he respect confidentiality, into a ducking of issues and trumpeted that to the public elsewhere. Shameless. 3 --> The issues unanswered by darwinists on matters that are strongly supported inductive signs of design are well known. So, the fingers in ears claim above is, again, highly misleading. 4 --> Instead of dealing with science and the underlying issue of the logic of induction, what I consistently have found from too many objectors to design theory is just what the just cited post shows: habitual resort to red herrings, led away to strawmen soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, poison, and polarise the atmosphere. 5 --> In this case, multiplied by violations of trust, even in the teeth of protest that trust has been violated. It seems we are dealing with the utterly amoral, and untrustworthy. Which amorality, of course is a consequence of evolutionary materialism that is usually hotly denied or contested by advocates of evolutionary materialism. But here we see it in action, yet again. 6 --> Plainly, not all such advocates -- and by no means any more than a small minority of adherents -- are amoral and untrustworthy, but the problem is that when a worldview is corrosive of morality, the corrosion tends to be effective. And ever since Plato in The Laws, Bk X, we have been warned that evolutionary materialist skepticism has this as a problem and tends to lead to ruthless factions who live by the principle that the highest right is might. 7 --> It is plain to me that Zachriel, the pseudonymous advocate of darwinism, has violated trust because he thought it would be to his advantage and he could get away with it. Let the record reflect this, for all to see. 8 --> I do not doubt that in the penumbra of hostile and hate sites around UD this slander above has been repeated as gospel truth, with the intent of harming reputation as a substitute for actually addressing matters on the merits. 9 --> What a sadly revealing reflection on those who take that sort of position or tolerate it. Good day. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
May 8, 2012
May
05
May
8
08
2012
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT
@Elizabeth Liddle: "More to the point, how does ID explain the total absence of the efficient bird lung design in mammals, who have to make do with non-flow-through lungs? It makes total sense from a common-descent/Darwinian perspective, but none at all from an ID perspective." It makes perfect sense when one considers the fact that the Final Cause of the flow-through lungs in birds is for increased efficiency IN FLIGHT. We do not fly. And in anticipation of what will doubtless be your next challenge, namely "And why didn't the designer make us with the capacity to fly?" I point out the fact that, despite the fact that the Wright Brothers "hit on" the design of the airplane wing more than a hundred years ago, it has not been transferred to cars. Why not? Because a car serves its Final Cause (efficient transport from place to place for the common man) perfectly fine without the capacity for flight. Similarly, we humans serve our Final Cause (the accumulation of knowledge) perfectly fine without the capacity for flight. And as to your objection to my identification of humanity's Final Cause as the accumulation of knowledge, I point you to information which makes a case for our planet as an observatory of sorts, a platform from which we view the universe, and a place well suited to allowing us to do so. (our location between the galactic arms and away from the center allows us to see into deep space, the transparency of our atmosphere to visible light allows us to see through the atmosphere into space, etc. etc.) More information on the subject of our planet as an observatory: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-earth-not-our-mother-not-our-sister-not-a-living-thing-but-our-treasure-trove-our-observatory-our-library-our-spaceship-and-our-home/OmneVivumExVivo
April 18, 2012
April
04
Apr
18
18
2012
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
BTW, the person who wrote that was asked by KF to stop mailing him. Funny how KF claims that nobody can provide an answer to his questions when he asks those very same people to stop communicating with him. Seems to me that one of the main weapons in the ID arsenal are fingers in ears.Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT
More to the point, how does ID explain the total absence of the efficient bird lung design in mammals, who have to make do with non-flow-through lungs? It makes total sense from a common-descent/Darwinian perspective, but none at all from an ID perspective. Any human designer, having hit on the flow-through design, would transfer it to other design lineages, surely. That's why cars have air-con.Elizabeth Liddle
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT
KF
You will notice a telling silence for days in response to the Avian Lung or comparable case raised in the previous page and in the original post, it is not just at molecular level.
Perhaps if you went out into the world beyond UD you could find the answers you so desperately seek. The fact that nobody has given you an answer that satisfies you does not mean that no such answer exists. And if you to claim victory on that basis then it's a hollow victory indeed. Tell me, have you ever tried typing "evolution bird lung" into google scholar? You appear to be confusing your inability to imagine a pathway as evidence that such a pathway cannot exist! In this case it takes but a simple valve to convert bidirectional flow, as in a mammal's lung, to unidirectional flow, as in a bird's lung. Example the image here: http://tinyurl.com/birdlungschematic Under the "Respiratory System of Birds" heading. Notice the valve that controls unidirectional flow. Simply remove the valve, and you have a bidirectional system.* In birds, though, valving is thought to be aerodynamic, not mechanical. As for the pumping system itself, the most primitive system is buccal, where the mouth pushes air into the lungs, while elastic pressure pushes it back out. However, among amniotes, costal breathing, muscles associated with the ribs, is the primitive condition. Birds aspirate costosternally, by rotating the ribs and depressing the end of the sternum. Nor is bird respiration completely unidirectional as flow through the neopulmonic bronchi is bidirectional (though not fully developed or absent in some birds). As for exactly how and when the bird lung evolved, that is still not known with any certainty—lungs don't normally fossilize—; however, it appears that air sacs and costosternal pumping predate birds. Sereno, et al., Evidence for Avian Intrathoracic Air Sacs in a New Predatory Dinosaur from Argentina. PLoS ONE, 2008. * Addendum: Even if the valving is not perfect, it will increase the efficiency of respiration. In other words, the valve can easily evolve incrementally. Cribbed from here: http://tinyurl.com/7msgwya Thanks Z! Now, KF, how does ID explain the origin of the bird lung?Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT
Got it, looks good to me!kairosfocus
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT
Oh boy, I got the closing href tag muddled.Eugene S
January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
Champignon, Jigsaw puzzles were presented as an example. Consider the number of pieces and the number of ways you can put them together (provided pieces are identical in shape). This problem is NP-complete which suggests that with the number of pieces growing, it quickly becomes intractable (unless, of course, P=NP). However, only one of those cofigurations presents the solution. More generally, functionality implies choice with intent towards improving utility (on massive evidence to this effect vs no evidence to the contrary). Borrowing the terminology from David Abel, physicality (=physical reality) does not have intent or goal. Control as a process that steers events to potential function testifies to agency, upon massive observations. So as soon as we see genuine control anywhere, we can infer to intelligent cause. Note that our inference to intelligence is legitimate until such times as evidence to the contrary is produced and demonstrated to be statistically significant (see here). The word "process" itself etimologically comes from "procedure" which is a formalism and, consequently, an artefact. In the strict sense or this word, stochastic processes are self-contradictory. The example of jigsaw puzzles is particularly nice because it clearly demonstrates the decoupling of the rules of the game from the underlying physical reality, which does not care which particular configuration is winning. So the jigsaw puzzle cannot be reduced to simply configurations of atoms. On the contrary, the semantic load (function) is attached to it via intelligent choice, which examplifies a formalism. So in the end, the attachment of function to a configuration of matter is what counts, not that particular solving configuration (which might have been chosen by us absolutely differently irrespective of the physical layer). Another example is the TCP/IP protocol stack. You get meaningful information only after it is processed and "lifted up" all the way from the physical layer to the application layer. To assert that meaning can be spontaneously organised at the physical layer is absolute nonsense.Eugene S
January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT
Thanks a bunch for your comment kairo. I sent you an email - hope I sent it to the right email address.Genomicus
January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
02:14 AM
2
02
14
AM
PDT
Gene: It would be wonderful to get a guest-post from you on the front loading hyp. Why not go to my handle, LH column, and click then use the onward contact me? KFkairosfocus
January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT
Gene: very well said, and obviously well informed. KFkairosfocus
January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
01:29 AM
1
01
29
AM
PDT
GP: Very well said, as usual. (Dunno if I have said it, but you are one of my very favourite commenters and contributors at UD, I would love to hear more from you, why not consider a regular "column" here, say once a week?) KFkairosfocus
January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT
ChasD: No it isn’t. The process of evolution continues today; the process of “OOL” does not. If you take any current population, it will, according to some very concrete mathematical, empirical, computational and theoretical work, evolve. Blindly, by natural means. We do not need to insert a designer to keep this process ticking over; it happens all by itself. You have to interfere to stop it. Yes, it is. The "process of evolution" you are speaking of is only the microevolutionary change, with the intervention of NS if and when it applies, that cannot in any way explain the origin of complex functional biological information. My statement was that "The same evidence that applies to OOL applies to further evolution." The evidence I am speaking of, as should be clear from the rest of my post, is the evidence of the constant emergence of new complex functional information, such as the emergence of new basic protein domains. That evidence is abundant both at the origin of life and after. And your answer is in no way an answer to that. So you are segregating out the unavoidable, natural process of evolution through mutation and selection/drift (as I find myself repeating, the thing ID is not anti), and asserting that there was historic interference with it, even though a ‘blind’ process of evolution can and does occur all by itself. I am "segregating" nothing at all. I am speaking of the emergence of new complex functions, and your "unavoidable, natural process of evolution through mutation and selection/drift" cannot explain that. We can argue about what it can create Yes, I do argue about that! That's why I am here, discussing in favour of ID. but essentially, left to its own devices, a population experiencing birth and death will evolve, inexorably. Mutations will become fixed, and there is no going back. And so? If that "evolution" cannot explain complex functional information, it is totally irrelevant to what we are discussing. So when you talk of ‘further evolution’, you have to offer some means to distinguish that which can occur naturally from the interference. What do you think we are doing here? Have you ever read one of my detailed discussions about dFSCI? IC is one such attempt. It is a very successful "attempt"! But IC, as defined by Behe, is about complex molecular machines made by many complex individual parts. My argument is about basic protein domains, and has nothing to do with that, but rather with dFSCI, and with the arguments made by Axe and Abel and Durston. But it remains entirely in accord with the ID inference, as stated, to allow for an ID OOL, and then NO further interference. The two are not subject to identical considerations. I don't agree. The problem of the emergence of new dFSCI is extremely obvious both at OOL and after. Therefore, a design inference is equally mandatory both for OOL and for further evolution that implies new complex functional information. Therefore, the two problems are subject to identical considerations, at least from this fundamental point of view.gpuccio
January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT
ChasD: Where did I ever say that the pre-biotic situation is the same phenomenon as that of the living cell? NOWHERE. What I pointed out is that in both cases it is necessary to account for the spontaneous origin of functionally specific complex -- often, irreducibly complex -- organisation and associated information [FSCO/I] on blind chance and mechanical necessity. That is, if the darwinian evolutionary model is to be justified on observed empirical evidence orf macroevolution rather than an imposed evolutionary materialist a priori that is then illustrated with simplistic micro cases grossly extrapolated beyond the observed phenomena that will be persuasive to the eye of Darwinian faith, but which has actually failed bear the weight of the grand claims being made. In the case of Darwin's warm little electrified pond or the like, I highlighted the need to explain the origin of a metabolising entity with an integral von Neumann self-replicating facility, which also implies the origin of not just machinery but also symbolic codes [thus, language], algorithms and storage media. I pointed out that on the observed evidence this credibly requires in excess of 100,000 bits of information where just 500 bits is well beyond the credible search capacity of blind chance and necessity on the gamut of our solar system, and 1,000 bits, the cosmos we observe. I need not underscore further, that the vNSR is also irreducibly complex. In short, the point that the need for a cluster of well matched, properly organised and oriented, hooked up parts per a wiring diagram leads to a deeply isolated island of function is on the table. Going on, once we have a living cell, we then face the issue of origin of major body plans and related organ systems etc. In this case, we often face the same FSCI threshold issue, with credibly 10 - 100 + million bits of information required, on earth, dozens of times over. And, in many cases, the systems are examples of irreducible complexity as well, e.g. the avian lung vs the bellows lung. (Onlookers, notice how this case is consistently being ducked. Oops, pun unintentional.) Such cases again point to the reality of islands of deeply isolated function. Perhaps, I should cite here Meyer's PBSW article, which of course -- despite the politics that was played tot try to discredit it and to break the confidentiality of peer review [with retaliatory behaviour obviously on the agenda if that had been successful] -- passed proper peer review by "renowned scientists":
The Cambrian explosion represents a remarkable jump in the specified complexity or "complex specified information" (CSI) of the biological world. For over three billions years, the biological realm included little more than bacteria and algae (Brocks et al. 1999). Then, beginning about 570-565 million years ago (mya), the first complex multicellular organisms appeared in the rock strata, including sponges, cnidarians, and the peculiar Ediacaran biota (Grotzinger et al. 1995). Forty million years later, the Cambrian explosion occurred (Bowring et al. 1993) . . . One way to estimate the amount of new CSI that appeared with the Cambrian animals is to count the number of new cell types that emerged with them (Valentine 1995:91-93) . . . the more complex animals that appeared in the Cambrian (e.g., arthropods) would have required fifty or more cell types . . . New cell types require many new and specialized proteins. New proteins, in turn, require new genetic information. Thus an increase in the number of cell types implies (at a minimum) a considerable increase in the amount of specified genetic information. Molecular biologists have recently estimated that a minimally complex single-celled organism would require between 318 and 562 kilobase pairs of DNA to produce the proteins necessary to maintain life (Koonin 2000). More complex single cells might require upward of a million base pairs. Yet to build the proteins necessary to sustain a complex arthropod such as a trilobite would require orders of magnitude more coding instructions. The genome size of a modern arthropod, the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster, is approximately 180 million base pairs (Gerhart & Kirschner 1997:121, Adams et al. 2000). Transitions from a single cell to colonies of cells to complex animals represent significant (and, in principle, measurable) increases in CSI . . . . In order to explain the origin of the Cambrian animals, one must account not only for new proteins and cell types, but also for the origin of new body plans . . . Mutations in genes that are expressed late in the development of an organism will not affect the body plan. Mutations expressed early in development, however, could conceivably produce significant morphological change (Arthur 1997:21) . . . [but] processes of development are tightly integrated spatially and temporally such that changes early in development will require a host of other coordinated changes in separate but functionally interrelated developmental processes downstream. For this reason, mutations will be much more likely to be deadly if they disrupt a functionally deeply-embedded structure such as a spinal column than if they affect more isolated anatomical features such as fingers (Kauffman 1995:200) . . . McDonald notes that genes that are observed to vary within natural populations do not lead to major adaptive changes, while genes that could cause major changes--the very stuff of macroevolution--apparently do not vary. In other words, mutations of the kind that macroevolution doesn't need (namely, viable genetic mutations in DNA expressed late in development) do occur, but those that it does need (namely, beneficial body plan mutations expressed early in development) apparently don't occur . . .
So, the issue is not that the two are the same, but that they face the same FSCO/I origin challenge. And, this then leads to the further challenge that if the branching tree of life model is true, it had to have a root. But, we have no good empirical warrant for a theory of a root. Then, we have to account for gradualistic development of major structures, with at most rather modest increments in complexity that have to be fixed in the population while we move on to the next stage. This would need solid empirical warrant per observations, not just for the avian lung but for ever so many other major features of life. Gould in his lat book, 2002, and in the decades before that too, consistently testified that that is exactly what is not there on the ground, across the different levels in the taxonomy of living things. (Do I need to point out that if the "evolutionary" sequence of Corvettes and the categorisation of paper clips etc on taxonomic principles are quite feasible, then this means that such do not by themselves constitute decisive evidence of common descent with modification by spontaneous and blind chance and necessity acting trough chance variation and differential reproductive success? As in, the listed items are of course DESIGNED.) Let's hear Gould, again as the OP cites him:
. . . long term stasis following geologically abrupt origin of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists. [The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002), p. 752.] . . . . The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section [[first occurrence] without obvious ancestors in the underlying beds, are stable once established and disappear higher up without leaving any descendants.” [p. 753.] . . . . proclamations for the supposed ‘truth’ of gradualism – asserted against every working paleontologist’s knowledge of its rarity – emerged largely from such a restriction of attention to exceedingly rare cases under the false belief that they alone provided a record of evolution at all! The falsification of most ‘textbook classics’ upon restudy only accentuates the fallacy of the ‘case study’ method and its root in prior expectation rather than objective reading of the fossil record. [[p. 773.]
Of course, a self replicating system subject to variation will change, but the evidence is that such changes will be within a body plan, and often constitute a gradual loss of functional capacity by breaking something at molecular level that happens to be advantageous in an adverse situation, but which is not necessarily advantageous as a whole; nor do we see cases of the observed emergence of significant body plan elements like the avian lung, or the like. Think of the case with the Tomcod in polluted rivers. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT
Champignon, Evolutionary theory predicts a nested hierarchy. That one word, that indefinite article, is very important. Your argument that evolution predicts nested hierarchies is like throwing seeds into a field and predicting that something will grow. If grass grows, that's a confirmation. If sunflowers grow, that's a confirmation. If man-eating plants from the Little Shop of Horrors grow, or if skyscrapers grow, that's a confirmation. Sure, evolution predicts a nested hierarchy. That's fine if you're cherry-picking evidence. The trouble is with what the nested hierarchy is made of. Evolution doesn't predict that. Based on observation evolution predicts more of the same, perhaps bigger, faster, slower, stronger, etc. And then you can arrange those into your nested hierarchy. A nested hierarchy of evolutionary changes is great. A nested hierarchy of things for which there is no evolutionary explanation and which stand in stark contrast to any observed products of evolution is obviously not a confirmation of evolution. A nested hierarchy of spiders and bats and dolphins and venus flytraps and humans and earthworms and butterflies is excellent confirmation of evolution as long as you remove every part except "nested hierarchy." The rest is contradiction, not confirmation. This is something that you only notice if you're inclined to examine the idea critically. Unfortunately most peoples' eyes seem to glaze over when they hear "nested hierarchy" and then they drink the Kool-Aid.ScottAndrews2
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Ge: Great stuff, keep it coming! (You will notice a telling silence for days in response to the Avian Lung or comparable case raised in the previous page and in the original post, it is not just at molecular level.) I am having to deal with a violation of confidence case behind the scenes now plus the fallout from my expose of eugenics and Hitler's Antichrist spirit, so too busy for details. But I most definitely will read! Gkairosfocus
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
Until you have evidence that the transformatons required are even possible you have no idea if common descent can cause the genetic pattern you describe.
That’s not sufficient cause to exclude the hypothesis.
It means it is an untestable hypothesis. And science tends to exclude those.
But IF the explanation is common descent, we would expect to see a pattern derived from the known iterative branching that common descent processes actually display.
But we have no idea what pattern common descent would produce.
Either they did descend, or the sequences were made to look like they did – both functional and nonfunctional.
Yet they only look like they did to people who want/ need them to look like that. The problem is you do not know what pattern common descent would produce so you assume it produced the pattern you see. Yet your whole thing is untestable. And taht is a problem for science.Joe
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
Dude, Until you have evidence that the transformatons required are even possible you have no idea if common descent can cause the genetic pattern you describe.
That's not sufficient cause to exclude the hypothesis. We are presented with a dataset (gene sequences) and we have no idea how they came to exist. Whimsical designer, purposeful designer, common descent, puffed into existence by encoding vital passages from the OOS ... who knows? But IF the explanation is common descent, we would expect to see a pattern derived from the known iterative branching that common descent processes actually display. Have a look at a tree sometime. So we adopt that hypothesis. We perform the analysis and - my god! It supports the hypothesis of common descent! So we look at another sequence and it doesn't. OK, strike one. Then we look at another sequence and it does. Gradually, we build up a dataset. All these sequences support this phylogeny; there are a few anomalies, but the overall signal we are getting is a tree. We don't just brush the rest under the carpet; we look for explanations for the disconformities. It can be just as interesting as the conformity. Based upon the dataset alone, we have no idea if these organisms can have practically descended from a common ancestor, but all the analyses we can muster are consistent with them having done so. What are we to conclude? Either they did descend, or the sequences were made to look like they did - both functional and nonfunctional. There are special causes and there are deceitful special causes! The clearest signals are the digital ones - discontinuities in DNA: transpositions, insertions, deletions and inversions. If you can delete a particular insertion with no ill-effect, it is clearly not functional. And yet we find such things following the phylogenetic signal recovered from assumed-functional data. Deceit or common descent, take your pick. (Common design: Intention of (1) an individual to commit two or more crimes, or (2) two or more individuals to commit a crime together.)
Mike Shermer calls it “patternicity”- that is people find patterns and then try to make something of it-> something that isn’t there.
A fair description of ID. There comes a point when refusing to see the pattern becomes plain perverse. Experienced systematists are well aware of the pitfalls, and construct statistical methods to try and impose objective standards and remove artefacts. Oh, hang on - they 'smuggle in' the result. Of course.Chas D
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
PeterJ
Chas D ‘When a replicating process is set in train, however caused, then whenever designers stop interfering, the natural process rolls on, and has consequences – intentional or not’ Perhaps. But with massive limitations. As the fossil record clearly shows.
The fossil record shows nothing of the limitations of any process (except, perhaps, the fossilisation, preservation and discovery processes). It samples individuals. How they came to be born, the genes they had, all the 'offstage' activity marked by their ancestors (if any) and their descendants (if any), the fossil record does not record. Their DNA, their soft parts - (mostly) gone. They are blurry 3D 'photographs' of individuals and you can no more tell the limitations of the process that impinged upon their existence than you could determine the limitations upon your father's passage through spacetime from the family album - that goes for design theories too. You can't just assert unseen limitations in order to give unseen designers something to do. Fossils yield a lot of information, but little about genetic mechanism or its limitations.Chas D
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT
Dude, Until you have evidence that the transformatons required are even possible you have no idea if common descent can cause the genetic pattern you describe. Mike Shermer calls it "patternicity"- that is people find patterns and then try to make something of it-> something that isn't there.Joe
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT
Thanks, kairosfocus. Under the teleological hypothesis of front-loading, the endosymbiosis explanation for the origin of eukaryotic cells isn't that problematic, but it is problematic for non-telic explanations. Also, on a side note, earlier on this thread someone was asking for some evidence that functional space consist of islands, instead of, well, continents. While digging up some references for a response to Nick Matzke on the thread "Mike Behe: A Blind Man Carrying a Legless Man Can Safely Cross the Street," I came across the paper "Adaptive molecular convergence," and found this bit: "We had also shown in another study that some of the same mitochondrial proteins had endured remarkably strong selection for radical changes at otherwise highly conserved sites early in snake evolution. This makes sense if the protein adaptive landscape is narrow rather than vast, with only one or a few pathways to reach a neighboring adaptive peak..." (emphasis added)Genomicus
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT
1 2 3 14

Leave a Reply