|
Author
|
Topic: Non congruent phylogenies
|
Cornelius G. Hunter
Member
Member # 81
|
posted 26. December 2002 17:17
Yersenia:
We are now discussing several different topics so I would like to respond with separate messages.
Does ID predict congruent phylogenies?
It appears that I did not misunderstand you, and that you actually are claiming that designed objects do not have characters that naturally fall into a hierarchical pattern, but rather would only do so by force fitting the design decisions. In other words, if we are to take performance as the only contribution to our cost function, then ID would not predict any statistically significant level of congruency in phylogenies based on different characters. This is a remarkable claim (Claim Y1) which I do not feel you have established thus far (understandably since you've only written a few posts on it). I would be very interested in learning why Claim Y1 is true and would appreciate your further elaboration to help on this. Let me explain where you can help in your explanation.
Some simple examples
You asked if I read the quote from the web page you pasted. Yes, I read it. I understand why you ask the question, however, as I did infer that author was implicitly restricting the discussion to arbitrary design decisions (I was trying to be charitable). Otherwise the passage makes little sense.
You say that in my gasoline-powered machine example my categories were arbitrary. I grant you that, as I said, the example was off the top of my head, but I thought it was clear that the categories were obviously not arbitrary but rather flowed from general to specific, as we find in the Linnaean categories. Can you elaborate on why the categories for designed objects are necessarily arbitrary? I ask because the reasoning you do give:
quote:
The point is that your "tree" would not be produced by an analysis of other subsystems of gasoline-driven machines, e.g. tires, liscense plates, GPS units, radios, onboard computers, whatever. -- Yersinia
appears to make little sense. It is obvious that different functional design subsystems (or decisions) will be correlated as I pointed out with my aircraft example (ie, low-speed aerodynamics correlated with piston propulsion; super-sonic aerodynamics correlated with turbofan propulsion). Therefore I cannot see how you can defend your claim. Do you really believe that functional designs are not correlated? Do you think that tires, transmissions, and carburetors are not correlated? The papers you cite, judging from their titles, do not appear to make this contention (not surprisingly).
Machine design
It is probably also worth a more theoretical consideration of the problem. Consider a set of designed objects (machines) which share the following similarities:
1) Some similarity in function,
2) Must operate in the same universe with same natural laws,
3) Must operate on the same planet,
4) Some similarity in environment,
5) Share in only one or a few energy sources.
Consider a set of machines which share a common design topology. That is, they all have the same functional components, though those components can be designed differently. Again, automobiles work as an example. They all have one engine, 4 tires, 1 transmission, 1 steering wheel, none have wings or elevators, etc. The machine performance can be described as:
{x'} = [F]{x}
{y} = [H]{x}
where,
{x} = machine state vector
{y} = machine performance vector (metrics)
[F] = plant, a rich matrix containing the design information
[H] = performance matrix, relating machine state to performance.
Note that I've used a linear system characterization here where designed objects are, of course, in general nonlinear systems. I think there is no loss of generality and is acceptable for our pedagogical purposes.
The n design parameters, (dp), that determine [F] may be continuous variables (eg, wheel diameter) or discrete (eg, flag indicating fuel injection). Obviously [F] is not guaranteed to be smooth everywhere when expressed as a function of (dp). The important, and rather fundamental, issue at hand, is that [F] cannot generally be decoupled into n separate functions of dp_i. If you change one dp, then you may well need to change another dp in another subsystem of the machine, as they have implications for each other. The elements of [F], inevitably contain coupling between the different subsystems (as in my aircraft example).This is basic and obvious to engineers. Claim Y1 entails just such a decoupling.
Obviously there are cases where dp_i are uncorrelated. And of course there are dp_i which have no influence on performance (such as car color). Thus it is difficult to make specific statements about the degree of coupling without discussing the specifics of the set of machines in question. At some point, these analogies must be dropped and we must look to biology for the specifics.
--Cornelius
IP: Logged
|
|
yersinia
Member
Member # 324
|
posted 26. December 2002 17:42
Perhaps if we follow things a bit further the non-hierarchical nature of designed machines will be clearer.
Let's say an improved type of tire is invented. In human design, is this:
(a) only used in whatever "lineage" of cars it was first used in and its direct descendants, or
(b) rapidly used in new tires for many different "unrelated" cars?
(a) produces congruent phylogenies for tires and car models, (b) produces a conflicting phylogeny for tires and car models.
(a) occurs in common descent, (b) occurs in designed systems.
The same logic applies for lots of other systems in cars, e.g. airbags and GPS units did not arise in one lineage of cars and only occur in its descendants, rather they were widely included in all "lineages".
IP: Logged
|
|
Cornelius G. Hunter
Member
Member # 81
|
posted 26. December 2002 17:50
Yersenia:
When you say:
quote:
But what you have to explain, in order to explain things as well as current theory, is how all of those arbitrary characters (many of them, such as DNA degeneracy, absolutely known to be functionless differences) produce statistically the same nested hierarchical trees! If you can't do that then there's no reason to switch from the current explanation. -- Yersinia
can you give an example of characters that are "absolutely known to be functionless differences" and produce congruent phylogenies?
Also, I think you are presenting a biased view here. In other words, let us say for discussion sake that there exist, as you say, many arbitrary characters with "absolutely known to be functionless differences" which produce congruent phylogenies. Then this is a factor to be considered in the big picture. I don't think the ID vs evolution question boils down to: "which one better explains molecular phylogenies?"
As we've already discussed, evolution has many significant problems (evolution of complex systems such as echolocation or DNA code; the many non congruent phylogenies, etc.). I think it makes more sense to consider all the factors, positive and negative, for all the theories under consideration, not restrict it to our favorite topic.
Furthermore, you are continuing to focus exclusively on performance as the only factor in the design cost function. You seemed to miss the point I was making in that section. Evolutionists seem unable to think outside of their paradigm, and insist competing theories succeed in solving the problems which are unique to evolution. They insist on using performance as the universal cost function. As I've already pointed out many times, just as an example, car color would correlate with other, functional design parameters, though car color itself does not influence function or performance.
--Cornelius
IP: Logged
|
|
Cornelius G. Hunter
Member
Member # 81
|
posted 26. December 2002 18:06
Yersenia:
I'm having difficulty seeing how the development of new technologies supports your Claim Y1. As you write:
quote:
airbags and GPS units did not arise in one lineage of cars and only occur in its descendants, rather they were widely included in all "lineages". -- Yersinia
When a new technology is developed it does not appear in a particular "lineage." Where will it appear? Well we first must know the nature of the new subsystem. Is it unrelated to performance (eg, a new cigarette holder)? In that case it may not be correlated with other design parameters (dp's) and so would not produce a congruent phylogeny. Though it may be. The cigarette holder may appear only in luxury cars.
On the other hand, perhaps the new subsystem does influence performance (eg, a new type of fuel injection). In that case it may be decoupled from the other dp's and so does not produce a congruent phylogeny. Or it may be coupled, and therefore would produce a congruent phylogeny. We've already gone over all this. The question is not: "is it new or not?" The question is: "how does this subsystem relate to the others?"
How is it that the development of new technologies over time supports your Claim Y1?
--Cornelius
IP: Logged
|
|
Cornelius G. Hunter
Member
Member # 81
|
posted 26. December 2002 19:26
Yersenia:
Thank you for detailing your challenge:
quote:
You and Cre8tionist have proposed that convergences like the placental/marsupial wolf are better explained by intelligent design for the same function.
I pointed out that rather than the "same" design being transplanted, it looks more like it was independently invented by modification of different starting points, and that the convergence is superficial in that the true relationships of the organisms remain clear based on homologies.
But, if you are going to maintain the hypothesis that ID accounts for the complex carnivory specializations of wolves and thylacines, you have to explain why it appears that the design wasn't transplanted, but rather re-invented. If a designer wanted carnivores in Australia, it would have been much easier just to put some dogs on a boat, as the stone-age Aborigines did, rather than do all of that complex creative genetic engineering twice in two different ways.
Ditto for carnivorous marsupial "cats" in isolated south America, cacti vs. south African succulents, lemurs in Madagascar, Hawaiian honeycreepers, and of course Darwin's finches. Why should independent design correlate so well with geographical isolation? Did the IDer not know of boats? -- Yersinia
I believe this is at best a misunderstanding of ID, and at worst petitio prinipii. I already discussed this in a response to RBH earlier in the thread. Basically, the point is this. There seems to be a rather widespread misconception that ID is about modeling the designer, in a fashion the is analogous to evolution modeling the process of evolution. ID is not a theory of everything as evolution is (at least within the field of biology). ID recognizes that naturalistic mechanisms are insufficient to explain biology. What is needed is a intelligent designer who is not limited to, as RBH put it, "mechanisms implemented in matter and energy." Yes, the designer used mechanisms, matter and energy, but is also autonomous and free to intervene. The designer is a sovereign, intelligent agent with free will. It is simply petitio prinipii to demand a model for the designer. If ID's premise is correct, then no such model is possible.
As I wrote to RBH earlier, the bread and butter of ID research is the formulation of classes, phenomena and variables in understanding how life works. It is not trying to tease out the details of how life was created. Of course, there are several metaphysical interpretations of ID, and there will be those who will pursue theories of everything that are based on ID. But I wouldn't lump that in with ID itself.
Biology is not like physics. Physics has a relatively small number of laws, biology is more like a tapestry. Yes, we can argue it ultimately boils down to the actions of those laws with matter. But the systems are so complex that the manifestations are wildly varying. Yet they are worth studying because generalizations at the "manifestation" level are fruitful, to the extent they are possible. This is the research of ID, not fulfilling some required modeling of the designer as envisioned by those committed to naturalism.
With regard to the complex carnivory specializations you mention, ID is more interested in understanding the function and reason (or perhaps lack thereof) behind the different designs, not trying to justify the actions of the designer. So your challenge, as it stands, is fairly weak. To beef it up you need to show that those different specializations are unnecessary or absurd. As I said to RBH, the way to falsify design is:
1) Show that the designer's actions make little sense,
2) Show that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origin of species,
3) Show that the preponderance of scientific evidence/analysis strongly points to evolution.
Any of these is sufficient to falsify ID, or at least effectively falsify it by rendering ID redundant. Sarcastic and rhetorical barbs about how the designer didn't create according to your personal sensibilities will only backfire, but a serious and plausible challenge on #1 will work for you. For example, in this example you bring up, show that one of the specializations is unquestionably superior to the other, even if transplanted into those other species in that other environment and niche.
--Cornelius
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 26. December 2002 19:48
Cornelius
quote:
1) Show that the designer's actions make little sense,
2) Show that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origin of species,
3) Show that the preponderance of scientific evidence/analysis strongly points to evoluti
I would say that option 3 seems strongly supported by the facts. So far option 2 seems also quite reasonable but of course one can never prove that naturalistic mechanisms are 'sufficient'. Whether or not the actions of the designer make sense depends on how one interprets his/her actions. There seem to be little restrictions on the latter one.
So how does ID compare to this I wonder? Any thoughts?
[ 26. December 2002, 20:03: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 26. December 2002 20:26
Hunter wrote quote:
Is ID required to meet the standards of naturalism
The one exception in your statement is in the final clause, ie, "mechanisms implemented in matter and energy." It is probably the fundamental tenet of evolutionary theory that it be restricted to naturalistic explanations. Everything must be described in terms of, as you say, mechanisms implemented in matter and energy. The fundamental tenet of ID, on the other hand, is that this is insufficient. There must be a designer who is sovereign. Hence, it is not clear why one would expect such a mapping in the first place.
Why would one expect ID to provide "mechanisms implemented in matter and energy" which are alternatives to evolution? Indeed, I would argue that if it were to do so then it would lose its distinction and would be a subtheory of evolution. And obviously, it would violate the very premise for its existence, ie, that such explanations are insufficient. The point is that ID is a different type of scientific theory. Evolution attempts to explain things in terms of naturalistic mechanisms, ID does not. It doesn't make sense to apply the standards of naturalism to ID.
I'm afraid that posting pretty much rules out further participation by me in this thread. Our conceptions of what constitutes an adequate explanation of the phenomena of nature are too different to be bridged. My view is that without testable hypotheses about how immaterial designs are instantiated in matter and energy, and without articulated and testable hypotheses about the (embodied or unembodied) designer(s) and how it(they) realize designs in matter and energy, ID offers no explanation at all for allegedly designed biological things made of matter and energy. There is no content to an ID explanation beyond the bare assertion "This thing is designed."
Note carefully that my objection is not that such an ID explanation is not naturalistic; it is that it is vacuous. Having the ID "explanation" of a thing adds nothing to one's knowledge of the thing and hence nothing is explained by it.
Hunter wrote quote:
As I said to RBH, the way to falsify design is:
1) Show that the designer's actions make little sense,
2) Show that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origin of species,
3) Show that the preponderance of scientific evidence/analysis strongly points to evolution.
But in order to show that the designer's (or designers') actions make little sense, one has to have some notion of what would make sense to the designer. Yersinia has provided a number of examples that make little sense to me from a design point of view. But I have no idea whether they make sense to the hypothetical designer(s). That requires a theory of the nature, goals, and methods of the designer(s). One can't merely attribute human qualities to the designer(s); if nothing else, that is tantamount to creating God in man's image. Further, in the absence of a coherent theory of the nature, goals, and methods of the designer(s), there is literally nothing to "falsify." (Once again, I recommend Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery and Conjectures and Refutations, as well as Lakatos's The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes for a somewhat clearer notion of what "falsification" means.)
If we set out to explain a human-designed object or a property of objects (say, tail fins on cars in the late 1950s) in terms of intelligent design (Hunter has clearly implied that it is appropriate to use human design as a model in some of his examples), we would immediately move to examination of the designer(s). We would look at the goals of the designers (to sell more cars, to build esthetically pleasing cars, to imitate what Chrysler is doing with its tail fins, etc.). We would be interested in the interactions between design ideals and the constraints imposed by the manufacturing process ("We can't reliably bend that much metal, but we can do some other bending that's pretty close to it."). We would look at the influence of market surveys on design decisions ("People say they want longer tail fins!"). We would hypothesize about the marketing appeal of streamlining and about auto designers' borrowing from the esthetics of aircraft in designing tail fins.
We would, in other words, explain the tail fin craze in auto design in the late 1950s and early 1960s in much more detail than by just saying, "They were designed that way." Our explanation would contain conjectures and explicit hypotheses about the nature of the designers, about their intentions and skills, and about their interactions with the relevant environments - manufacturing, marketing, and customers. (Added in edit: And the competition! See the Multiple Designers Theory thread of some time back.) And our explanation, while perhaps incomplete, wouldn't be vacuous. Unless and until ID is prepared to offer the same sort of explanations for the biological phenomena it claims can't be explained by evolutionary theory, it will be empty of content.
Given that, and given the technical material Yersinia has summarized, my conclusion is that while evolutionary theory is surely incomplete and in the end may turn out to be wrong (as is the possibility for any scientific theory), it is far and away the strongest current explanation of the diversity of life on earth. People are free to believe whatever they will and to work on whatever they choose, but unless and until their views explain the data at least as well as evolutionary theory does, they do not have a successor, replacement, or even an alternative worth mentioning, say nothing of "falsifying."
RBH
[ 26. December 2002, 21:05: Message edited by: RBH ]
IP: Logged
|
|
yersinia
Member
Member # 324
|
posted 26. December 2002 20:33
Well, I am glad that Cornelius concedes that ID-design is different from regular design inferences, in that while we always have (even if approximate) models for the designer in the cases of forensics, archaeology, and even SETI, no such model shall be forthcoming for ID. Therefore we can expect nothing in particular if ID is true, and thus have no way to strengthen or weaken our confidence in the hypothesis.
I say this somewhat in jest, because Hunter in fact only uses the "there ain't no hypothetical model for the designer" argument as a defense, in fact he makes a few characterizations at times. Things have to "make sense" with regard to some unspecified criteria:
quote:
With regard to the complex carnivory specializations you mention, ID is more interested in understanding the function and reason (or perhaps lack thereof) behind the different designs, not trying to justify the actions of the designer. So your challenge, as it stands, is fairly weak. To beef it up you need to show that those different specializations are unnecessary or absurd. As I said to RBH, the way to falsify design is:
1) Show that the designer's actions make little sense,
2) Show that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origin of species,
3) Show that the preponderance of scientific evidence/analysis strongly points to evolution.
Any of these is sufficient to falsify ID, or at least effectively falsify it by rendering ID redundant.
The "origin of species" is a somewhat different topic and can be address elsewhere; I expect that if the usual examples of observed speciation or inferred very-recent-speciation were cited, he would back up the goalposts to the level of genus, family, order, phylum, etc. But that's another thread.
I think, though, that #1 and #3 are pretty easily satisfied by the Thylacine example:
quote:
Sarcastic and rhetorical barbs about how the designer didn't create according to your personal sensibilities will only backfire, but a serious and plausible challenge on #1 will work for you. For example, in this example you bring up, show that one of the specializations is unquestionably superior to the other, even if transplanted into those other species in that other environment and niche.
Well, how's this: the introduction of the dingo appears to have quite rapidly caused the extinction of the thylacine, which was extinct from mainland Australia before Europeans arrived. Thylacine species persisted for tens of millions of years in the Australian fossil record, into the period of human habitation, and yet some stone-age boat people (unintentionally) killed them off by transplanting an apparently superior design, the dingo.
The only place that thylacines hung on until the 1900's was in the isolated island of Tasmania, where dingos and bounty hunters reduced their population to fatally low numbers by the 1930's.
(one of several web sources on this)
As if this wasn't enough, this appears to be a general pattern with only a few exceptions: placentals have proven to be superior competitors for the same ecological niches, which is why there are precious few marsupials in South America (formerly an Australia-like place before the Panamanian isthmus connected it to North America), and why so many marsupials are endangered in Australia, while things like feral rats, cats, rabbits, and dogs (dingo) are thriving wildly.
By any standard of "good design", it appears that the hypothetical IDer's actions "make little sense": to carefully craft all of these marsupial species for parallel ecological niches on separate landmasses, let them be fruitful and multiply for millions of years, followed by prompt extermination once tectonic accidents or stone-age boats allow apparently superior designs to invade.
IP: Logged
|
|
Cornelius G. Hunter
Member
Member # 81
|
posted 26. December 2002 23:01
Folks:
Now for a relatively brief message addressing several posts:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Show that the designer's actions make little sense,
2) Show that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origin of species,
3) Show that the preponderance of scientific evidence/analysis strongly points to evolution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say that option 3 seems strongly supported by the facts. So far option 2 seems also quite reasonable but of course one can never prove that naturalistic mechanisms are 'sufficient'. Whether or not the actions of the designer make sense depends on how one interprets his/her actions. There seem to be little restrictions on the latter one.
So how does ID compare to this I wonder? Any thoughts? -- Frances
Frances,
I don't think we have scientific reason or evidence to believe complex systems such as echolocation or the DNA code could have evolved. And all of the positive evidences for evolution contain ambiguities or problems, so you and I have a very different view of the status of options 2 and 3. Given your view of options 2 and 3 as a starting point, I would reject ID out of hand.
RBH:
You wrote:
quote:
I'm afraid that posting pretty much rules out further participation by me in this thread. -- RBH
Ahh, but you wrote a few interesting things that I would like to respond to. Alas, I understand if you make no reponse; thank you for your well thought out messages. Of particular interest to me is:
quote:
Note carefully that my objection is not that such an ID explanation is not naturalistic; it is that it is vacuous. Having the ID "explanation" of a thing adds nothing to one's knowledge of the thing and hence nothing is explained by it. -- RBH
This strikes me as petitio principii. What I mean is, what if God did create the species? What if the evolution of the DNA code, ATPase, echolocation, the bombardier beetle, etc., etc. is absurd? By your logic we should reject any such hypothesis because it doesn't add to our knowledge. By the way, this sort of thinking has been quite popular historically, although especially so since Darwin. Historians call it the "intellectual necessity." For example:
quote:
On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is;—that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan; but this is not a scientific explanation.. -- Darwin
quote:
Whether the naturalist believes in the views given by Lamarck, by Geoffroy St. Hilaire, by the author of the ‘Vestiges,’ by Mr. Wallace or by myself, signifies extremely little in com-parison with the admission that species have descended from other species, and have not been created immutable: for he who admits this as a great truth has a wide field open to him for further inquiry. -- Darwin
quote:
But the Creator obviously could have fashioned each species in any way imaginable. There is no basis for us to make predictions about what we should find when we study animals and plants if we accept the basic creationist position. … the creator could have fashioned each or-gan system or physiological process (such as digestion) in whatever fashion the Creator pleased. -- N. Eldredge
quote:
Most modern biologists do not find this explanation [that God created the species] satisfying. For one thing, it is really not an explanation at all; it amounts to saying, ‘Things are this way because they are this way.’ Furthermore, it removes the subject from scientific inquiry. One can do no more than speculate as to why the Creator chose to follow one pattern in creating diverse animals rather than to use differing patterns. -- P. Moody
Yersenia:
I disagree with your conclusion that we have
quote:
no way to strengthen or weaken our confidence in the hypothesis-- Yersinia
Everytime we find evidence that a design in biology defies naturalistic mechanism (ie, creation via evolution) then it strengthens ID. Regarding weakening ID, I've already given 3 different types of arguments for that.
quote:
Well, how's this: the introduction of the dingo appears to have quite rapidly caused the extinction of the thylacine,-- Yersinia
Yes, this is a better formulation (perhaps I should have inferred it from your earlier post). You go on:
quote:
By any standard of "good design", it appears that the hypothetical IDer's actions "make little sense": to carefully craft all of these marsupial species for parallel ecological niches on separate landmasses, let them be fruitful and multiply for millions of years, followed by prompt extermination once tectonic accidents or stone-age boats allow apparently superior designs to invade. -- Yersinia
You make a good point. I would differ that this violates any standard of good design. What your example unequivocally shows is that quite similar species pairs can be unevenly matched. One performs better than the other and can wipe the other out. Why would the designer do that? Good question; good point.
--Cornelius
IP: Logged
|
|
Cornelius G. Hunter
Member
Member # 81
|
posted 26. December 2002 23:25
Yersenia:
You wrote:
quote:
If the genes and proteins of penguins, sharks, dolphins, seals, etc. grouped together, and bats and birds grouped together, etc., then you'd have an argument, but they don't. This is a massive mystery from an ID perspective but easily explained by evolution.-- Yersinia
I don't follow you reasoning here. Why is this a massive mystery for ID?
You wrote:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We should also note that homologies can develop from different genes, or otherwise follow different development patterns.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an argument of Wellsian origin and depends largely on obfuscatory use of quotes and words like "different" (and Wells' unique views about the unimportance of DNA, which are rebutted in detail this ISCID thread).-- Yersinia
Again, you lost me on this one too. I looked at the web page you cited and found nothing pertaining to my point, which does not derive from anything Wells wrote. It has been know for decades that homologies can derive from different genes or development paths. For example:
quote:
What mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered. -- Sir Gavin de Beer, Homology: An Unsolved Problem, 1971, p. 16.
quote:
It is the rule rather than the exception that homologous structures form from distinctly dissimilar initial states. -- P. Alberch, Systematic Zoology, 34(1), 1985, 46-58.
--Cornelius
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 27. December 2002 00:09
Cornelius responds to my statement that
2) Show that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origin of species,
3) Show that the preponderance of scientific evidence/analysis strongly points to evolution
I would say that option 3 seems strongly supported by the facts. So far option 2 seems also quite reasonable but of course one can never prove that naturalistic mechanisms are 'sufficient'.
with
quote:
I don't think we have scientific reason or evidence to believe complex systems such as echolocation or the DNA code could have evolved.
or could not have evolved. Thus there may remain some systems for which science has yet to find an answer but that was not the issue. I find it interesting how ID seems to want to focus on gaps in our knowledge while ignoring the vaste amounts of knowledge available. How could our ignorance be evidence of anything?
quote:
And all of the positive evidences for evolution contain ambiguities or problems, so you and I have a very different view of the status of options 2 and 3. Given your view of options 2 and 3 as a starting point, I would reject ID out of hand.
A reasonable conclusion I would argue.
RBH's statement that ID does not add anything to our knowledge may be begging the question if ID were right but IF ID is supernatural then science will have little to contribute to it or ID will have to contribute little to science. God did it is not a scientific explananation. In fact the evidence show that IF God created He surely seemed to have use the naturalistic pathways of evolution.
You may believe that failure of evolution to explain features is supporting evidence for ID but that is also begging the question.
So far evidence for ID seems to be limited to negative arguments and a lot of hand waving. I understand that you and Dembski want to give ID a privileged position of not having to explain pathways or mechanisms but then what does ID tell us? That God created and likely used naturalistic pathways or well 'we don't know'? I believe that my God has created our world in a manner open to our inquiries. And scientific inquiry shows strong evidence for evolution.
IP: Logged
|
|
Wesley R. Elsberry
Member
Member # 122
|
posted 27. December 2002 01:11
Cornelius G. Hunter wrote:
quote:
I don't think we have scientific reason or evidence to believe complex systems such as echolocation or the DNA code could have evolved.
Hmm. I don't think that we have scientific reason or evidence to indicate that echolocation is due to anything other than evolutionary processes.
There are several different approaches to biosonar. The examples of bats and odontocetes are pretty sophisticated, but those of oilbirds and honey badgers are relatively simple. Even humans can use hearing for directional cues, as several aids for the blind demonstrate.
So I'd like to know what, specifically, puts the dolphin biosonar system (the one I'm most familiar with) outside the scope of evolutionary process.
Wesley
Archived at this page.
IP: Logged
|
|
Cornelius G. Hunter
Member
Member # 81
|
posted 27. December 2002 01:21
Frances:
You write:
quote:
I find it interesting how ID seems to want to focus on gaps in our knowledge while ignoring the vast amounts of knowledge available. How could our ignorance be evidence of anything? -- Francis
But from my perspective I am not "ignoring the vast amounts of knowledge available;" rather, I am accounting for all the available knowledge and data. Furthermore, I would not characterize ID as focusing on gaps in our knowledge; rather, ID is using all our knowledge to identify evolution as flawed. This is not an argument from ignorance, except in the most unscientific sense. Consider, for example, if we were to say astrology is not a good theory and probably wrong. The astrologist could use all the same arguments you are using. But the problem is not our skepticism in astrology, but that the astrologers don't have science backing them.
You see, I hope it is clear, that the inability of evolution to explain our world is absolutely key to ID and it goes without saying that denying this is absolutely key to evolution. I gave the 3 ways to falsify ID:
1) Show that the designer's actions make little sense,
2) Show that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origin of species,
3) Show that the preponderance of scientific evidence/analysis strongly points to evolution
Yersenia and RBH rightly pointed out the difficulties with #1, for it hinges on how we define the designer. I include it because I think it can be a legitimate mode of argumentation, but I agree it is more difficult because there are more controversial premises to be agreed upon. Unfortunately, evolution has always relied on #1 to establish itself as a scientific fact.
Clearly, #2 and #3 are critical, no matter what your leaning. If I am correct that evolution succeeds only on #1 and fails on #2 and #3, then ID is false only to those who agree with the premises used in #1. And those premises are non scriptural.
If evolutionists are correct that they succeed on either #2 or #3, then they have made their case. So what this all boils down to is: what does the science say about evolution. As I said, I've studied the evidence, and frankly I marvel that we are even spending time on the question of evolution. To me it is clearly flawed, and it is little wonder that evolutionists dwell so much on #1. It clearly is the motivation for the theory.
You write:
quote:
In fact the evidence show that IF God created He surely seemed to have use the naturalistic pathways of evolution -- Francis
I would argue that the scientific evidence shows that God did not use naturalistic pathways as a primary creation mechanism. Again, how could we conclude this for the most complex things we know of? Only using #1 could we arrive at such a conclusion (again, with non scriptural assumptions about God). This is not to say God would not, or could not use naturalistic pathways. I'm merely claiming that the scientific evidence points away from this.
You write:
quote:
You may believe that failure of evolution to explain features is supporting evidence for ID but that is also begging the question. -- Francis
I don't understand. How is this begging the question?
You write:
quote:
I understand that you and Dembski want to give ID a privileged position of not having to explain pathways or mechanisms but then what does ID tell us? -- Francis
Again, in my opinion anyway, I do not view ID as a creation story. ID "tells us" whatever the research tells us about how organisms work. ID tells us that the DNA code is a triplet code; that RNA polymerase transcribes the DNA thread after gyrase helps unwind the double helix locally; that mRNA is translated into the protein primary structure on the ribosome, that, etc., etc. We need to get away from demanding some preconceived level of explanatory value, as though this is what a scientific theory must supply. If the scientific evidence supports evolution, then let's do away with ID. But if evolution fails, then we have ID.
--Cornelius
IP: Logged
|
|
yersinia
Member
Member # 324
|
posted 27. December 2002 01:54
It appears that the thread has devolved into several subtopics that are not strictly related to phylogenetic tree (non)congruence. Hunter's non-congruence reasons for why we should doubt the common descent of (say) Animalia appear to have been rebutted, as he is now raising numerous different issues that would take their own threads to address:
- Arguments about genes/development/homology
- Can speciation occur by natural processes?
- Can mutation+selection produce creative evolution?
I think that these questions are perhaps the real reasons that Hunter doubts common descent of animal species, not because the phylogenetic evidence is against it.
I think that the thylacine example is worth cogitating on further regarding ID vs. evolution, as it is not an isolated event but rather an instance of a very common phenomenon in biology: in geographically isolated regions, relatively unrelated organisms adapt to fill quite specific niches, but do it by "reinvention" that always differs in the details. Information transplants are not seen.
I would humbly note that this is what Darwin realized about the Galapagos species of turtles (and later, finches) once the taxonomists got to work on them back in Britain. He and many other world travellers have made remarks like "it is as if different creators acted in different places" or words to that effect.
When convergent organisms are transplanted by humans or natural events, a very common occurence is extinction of the native species. It's almost like whatever the creative force is draws its power from the size and time of isolation of the land mass in question...
IP: Logged
|
|
Cornelius G. Hunter
Member
Member # 81
|
posted 27. December 2002 02:05
Wesley:
You write:
quote:
So I'd like to know what, specifically, puts the dolphin biosonar system (the one I'm most familiar with) outside the scope of evolutionary process. -- Wesley
I am not familiar with the dolphin's biosonar, but I am somewhat familiar with human-made radar and sonar systems. For those who may not be familiar with the bat's echolocation system, we should briefly explain that it maps out objects around it as small as a mosquito by sensing the echoes of its own squeaks. Its squeaks are well beyond the range of human hearing and are emitted at up to 2,000 times per second. Next it determines both range and direction to the mosquito by sensing the echo while filtering out echoes from the squeaks of nearby bats. Anyone familiar with today’s sonar or radar systems knows the immense complexity involved with such systems: the problems of sensing the echo in the presence of the transmitted signal which can be billions of times stronger, of filtering out spurious signals such as echoes of older transmissions, of combining the echo information with knowledge of your own motion, and so forth. Yet the bat’s detection abilities are superior to those of the best electronic sonar equipment.
Evolution, on the other hand, has been shown to be able to make rather limited modifications to multi cellular organisms. These might include resistance to pesticides, minor morphological changes (eg, beak size and shape), more major morphological changes in the case of breeding (eg, dogs), coloration, etc. My list here (off the top of my head) is not close to being complete and I do not want to short-change evolution, but I trust I'm not missing anything too significant. My point is merely that, relative to the sorts of changes required to create a biosonar system, the observed evolutionary changes are rather minor. It is also worth noting that the observed evolutionary changes are made possible by a complex cellular machine that evolution cannot explain, aside from speculation.
I think it is fair to say that there does not exist empirical evidence supporting the claim that biosonar systems could have evolved. I would say it is, as you put it, "outside the scope of evolutionary process," at least the known process. The idea that it evolved likely arises from a prior commitment to the truth of evolution rather than biosonar systems appearing to have evolved.
It is probably worth exploring the question of whether it is at least a reasonable conjecture that such systems could have evolved? Personally, I would require any such attempt to include a fairly detailed explanation of the steps involved, where each step
(i) consists of changes of the type and magnitude that are empirically observed, and
(ii) confers increased fitness, or is reasonable for us to imagine given what we know about population genetics and neutral mutations.
Also, I would require that the mutations required, in total, pass a likelihood test. That is, given
(i) the number of bat populations and the number of years available, and
(ii) the immense design space involved,
is the evolutionary pathway anything more than astronomically unlikely. I feel these requirements are reasonable, and I have not seen any explanation that comes close. And I do not think it is because they are trivial and therefore taken for granted. In fact, correct me if I am wrong, I suspect we do not even have all the details of the bat's system so as to know what the required mutations are in the first place, let alone their individual effects at each step in the process.
--Cornelius
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic