|
Author
|
Topic: Provine Argues FOR the ID concept
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 14. May 2004 03:48
Recently I ran across an ARN report on the 2004 ID conference at Biola University in La Mirada, California. I found an interesting comment that rather floored me when I read it:
“Dr. William Provine, the Charles A. Alexander Professor of Biological Sciences at Cornell University, and an atheist who frequently has debated Dr. Johnson, described Phil as a genuinely likeable man and “twice as smart as me.” He challenged ID to fit into its paradigm the fact that 99.9% of earth’s life forms have gone extinct.”
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/Magnuson042604.htm
After all of these debates has no one told this gentleman that this is a major tenet and prediction of ID and we would fully expect this?
Our science is heavily based on thermodynamics and we would fully expect that rather than an evolution of complexity in the genome, we should instead see devolution via increasing entropy until mutational meltdown occurs and the species drops off the chart into extinction.
I find it interesting this is also what the only study completed on the human genome concerning the chimp to man lineage seems to show. Here is the abstract:
*****High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids.
Eyre-Walker A, Keightley PD.
Centre for the Study of Evolution and School of Biological Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK. A.C.Eyre-Walker@susx.ac.uk
It has been suggested that humans may suffer a high genomic deleterious mutation rate. Here we test this hypothesis by applying a variant of a molecular approach to estimate the deleterious mutation rate in hominids from the level of selective constraint in DNA sequences. Under conservative assumptions, we estimate that an average of 4.2 amino-acid-altering mutations per diploid per generation have occurred in the human lineage since humans separated from chimpanzees. Of these mutations, we estimate that at least 38% have been eliminated by natural selection, indicating that there have been more than 1.6 new deleterious mutations per diploid genome per generation. Thus, the deleterious mutation rate specific to protein-coding sequences alone is close to the upper limit tolerable by a species such as humans that has a low reproductive rate, indicating that the effects of deleterious mutations may have combined synergistically. Furthermore, the level of selective constraint in hominid protein-coding sequences is atypically low. A large number of slightly deleterious mutations may therefore have become fixed in hominid lineages*****
http://homepages.ed.ac.uk/eang33/pdfs/eyre-walker_keightley1999.pdf
Dr. Provine appears to have picked one of the most strongly supported predictions of ID to employ in argument against the concept.
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 14. May 2004 08:47
Jerry:
That is an excellent observation.
I have been studying for a while those aspects as "Intelligent Design corruption" (IDc). Notice that it is not 'ID' but the opposite: 'IDc'
The trigger for the 'bad genes', the extinction of dinosaurs, the origin and disappearance of Neanderthals, etc.
The research inspiration for 'the global catastrophes' of Cuvier was precisely an Intelligent Design... that was challenged.
Congratulations,
Fer.
[ 14. May 2004, 16:19: Message edited by: Fernando Castro-Chavez ]
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 14. May 2004 09:18
Wouldn't that also explain "junk" DNA? And vestigial organs? Cool! Seems like one can use ID to argue both sides of the issue: that's a sign of a healthy theory, rife with internal debate, isn't it?
[ 14. May 2004, 10:41: Message edited by: charlie d. ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nobody
Member
Member # 145
|
posted 14. May 2004 11:17
Good morning Jerry,
You say:
quote:
He challenged ID to fit into its paradigm the fact that 99.9% of earth’s life forms have gone extinct.”
How is that much of a challenge? Does he believe in an Earth without cataclysms? Is he trying to claim that certain living things were poorly designed because they failed to survive a comet/asteroid strike?!
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 14. May 2004 11:32
I see absolutely no reason why this would be a prediction of ID. It is an a posteriori observation that anyone can make, regardless of one's theory. Since it pervades the biotic world, it would be quite stupid not to incorporate it into one's theory after the fact. But in what way is this a positive argument for ID? There is no way.
What I would see as a positive contribution from ID on this subject would be a study of how complex systems can be set up to maintain order in the face of entropy.
An outline of how one might go about thinking about this subject is given by Polanyi in his "Life's Irreducible Structure."
http://www.jstor.org/view/00368075/ap004020/00a00100/0?currentResult=00368075
The important concept that Polanyi introduces is "boundary conditions" - those principles of organization that "harness the laws of inanimate nature" in service of the system.
What one might expect from ID, rather than predicting mass extinctions, would be an investigation into how matter can be efficiently organized to preserve system function within a certain range of perturbation and/or adaptation over time.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 14. May 2004 12:12
Mica, I agree with you, that 99.9% of the species has gone extinct seems to not be a defensible ID prediction.
Micah: What one might expect from ID, rather than predicting mass extinctions, would be an investigation into how matter can be efficiently organized to preserve system function within a certain range of perturbation and/or adaptation over time.
It may be interesting to point out how research in this area has been performed by such people as Lenski, Schneider, Adami, Ofria and others
The increase in entropy caused by (random) mutations is offset by the effects of natural selection which serves as a 'Maxwellian demon' to decrease entropy in the genome.
Adami et al have a paper in print
"Evolution of Robust Developmental Neural Networks" by Alan N. Hampton, Chris Adami
quote:
We present the first evolved solutions to a computational task within the Neuronal Organism Evolution model (Norgev) of artificial neural network development. These networks display a remarkable robustness to external noise sources, and can regrow to functionality when severely damaged. In this framework, we evolved a doubling of network functionality (double-NAND circuit). The network structure of these evolved solutions does not follow the logic of human coding, and instead more resembles the decentralized dendritic connection pattern of more biological networks such as the 'C. elegans' brain
Evolvability and robustness are very important concepts which seem to arise when the genome allows for neutral variation (see Toussaint's thesis for instance). Neutrality seems to be the essential concept which is confirmed by the nature of RNA and protein space which appears to be scale free in nature and neutral variation can explore most of the sequence space.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack
Member
Member # 265
|
posted 14. May 2004 12:17
Micah<< I see absolutely no reason why this would be a prediction of ID. It is an a posteriori observation that anyone can make, regardless of one's theory. >>
I agree. I don't think ID predicts extinction, on the other hand, I fail to see why extinction is suppose to be a problem for ID as Provine evidently thinks it is. Maybe I'm wrong but I think Provine is challenging ID on theological grounds. The old "why would God have done it that way" argument. I would maintain that extinction is perfectly compatible with a Biblical/Christian perspective. If Provine is using the fact of extinction to make a scientific argument against ID I sure would like to know what it is.
[ 14. May 2004, 13:58: Message edited by: Jack ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 14. May 2004 13:21
Pim,
Sure, there are going to be evolutionary models for such things. I never called that into question. I'm just laying out what I think would be a positive ID approach.
I fail to see the logic behind the patterns of your posts:
If we have a Darwinian model, then we need not consider any other model.
How boring. This is one of the primary reasons I've taken an interest in ID. I think it is enjoyable to look at the world through different lenses and to see what aspects of reality various perspectives might reveal.
Pluralism in methodology is not problematic.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 14. May 2004 13:34
I don’t see it as much a challenge at all, Nobody.
When tissue was designed, natural processes must have taken it from there and those natural processes are firmly governed by the second law of thermodynamics in that: With any spontaneous reaction or event entropy will tend to increase.
Genomes are not exempt from this law and one would fully expect disorder of the genome as it is passed down the lineage from generation to generation which is what the study I posted shows has happened in reality. In fact, the human genome disorders by 1.6 deleterious mutations per generation. How long can this continue without mutational meltdown and extinction?
Micah said: “I see absolutely no reason why this would be a prediction of ID. It is an a posteriori observation that anyone can make, regardless of one's theory. Since it pervades the biotic world, it would be quite stupid not to incorporate it into one's theory after the fact. But in what way is this a positive argument for ID? There is no way”
If, “As loose information is passed, information entropy will tend to increase” is true, which it is, then we would expect the information in the genome to be no different. What would be the stabilizing energy that would exempt the genome from this truism? And since this was posited before that study I posted was completed, I believe this is a prediction of ID that has been substantiated by the evidence.
And I don’t believe complex systems CAN be set up to maintain order in the face of entropy. If this can happen, then one of the most substantiated laws of science would be falsified. Would it be possible to construct a thermos that will keep my coffee hot through infinity? I don’t believe it is.
Complex systems can form out of chaos as something will (can??) settle out of that chaos similar to the tornado in a junk yard analogy. But once this system has settled out, the laws of nature must take it from there (BTW, I couldn‘t get into that link, is the paper anywhere else?).
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 14. May 2004 14:08
quote:
Jack wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong but I think Provine is challenging ID on theological grounds. The old "why would God have done it that way" argument.
I agree completely. This is likely an attempt to sneak theodicy in through the back door. Another possibility is that extinction indicates poor design, therefore a poor designer, etc.
What does the Modern Sythesis have to say about extinction, and is it coherent? Should we expect species to remain in stasis and then go extinct, or should we expect them to evolve? What does the evidence indicate? What sort of predictions can be made based upon each model?
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 14. May 2004 16:49
Scott asked quote:
What does the Modern Sythesis have to say about extinction, and is it coherent? Should we expect species to remain in stasis and then go extinct, or should we expect them to evolve? What does the evidence indicate? What sort of predictions can be made based upon each model?
Darwin addressed it in OoS. A handy index to the first edition of OoS is available here. The first edition itself is here.
As I'm sure Scott is aware, extinctions occur under several circumstances. If the selective environment changes rapidly and radically, so that the variation-generating and diffusing mechanisms of a population (principally mutation and recombination) cannot 'keep up' with that selective environment, a population is likely to go extinct. Rapid and radical change in the selective environment can occur for a number of reasons. For example, both the K-T and Permian mass extinctions are thought to have been due to changes in the physical environment caused by large asteroid strikes on earth. Sometimes the change is in the biotic environment. The large-scale extinction of native flora and fauna in the Hawaiian Islands was largely due to the introduction of non-native species that out-competed the native species.
Extinction then is a function of the relationship between the dynamics of adaptive change in populations and the dynamics of the selective environment.
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 15. May 2004 12:20
Micah, I would be the first one to applaud a positive approach of ID, what I am pointing out however that "an investigation into how matter can be efficiently organized to preserve system function within a certain range of perturbation and/or adaptation over time" does not seem to be something one might expect from ID alone. In fact I am not sure if one would expect ID to lead to such investigations but perhaps I am missing something here.
Micah: I fail to see the logic behind the patterns of your posts: If we have a Darwinian model, then we need not consider any other model.
Did I say this? What I pointed out is that your suggestion neither seemed really relevant to the concept of ID nor provide an alternative but perhaps I am missing something here. Nor am I limiting myself to Darwinian models, in fact I would applaud any proposed ID relevant models.
Micah: Pluralism in methodology is not problematic.
Of course not, but I am not really convinced that there is a pluralism in methodology involved here. Perhaps Micah can help us understand how ID would use a different methodology in the case quoted?
In the interest of pursuing positive contributions of ID I do encourage the readers of this forum to explore what this may look like and how and if it differs from other methodologies.
[ 15. May 2004, 12:25: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic