|
Author
|
Topic: What does Natural in Natural Selection mean?
|
zenheadache
Member
Member # 1233
|
posted 16. May 2004 20:12
This is a continuation of an off-topic theme developed at the end of the Philip L. Engle Brainstorm, which is now closed. I think this is worthy of discussion all by itself.
***
Post # 1 by Zenheadache:
Natural selection is a poor title, because the word natural has connotations which are philosophically indefensible.
The word natural, meaning by nature, meaning without intelligent guidance is of course loaded. Natural selection starts off in the very title of its theory by assuming that nothing is guided by intelligence, and then labors to prove what has been assumed. And it does seem to me that this is how the word natural is being used.
But I have not seen where intelligence has been ruled out. If we say that it cannot be, then to say that everything is due to natural causes is something of a con game.
If the world has been designed, then every discovery we make is a discovery of a designed thing or process, and so every part of science reveals something that is designed. The problem is how do we know if it is designed or not? It does not follow that if we do not know it all is designed, that it is therefore natural.
Until we make a discovery that says things could NOT have been designed, then all claims to the contrary are premature, and that is simply the way it is.
Instead, what we have are things like unpersuasive claims of the eye's imperfection, which does nothing to move the debate in any direction.
In an alternate universe, Darwinism might be called unnatural selection, where the proponents are aware of every fact known today, but regard them as evidence of how the designer works, and as they would seem strange to us, so we would seem strange to them, and neither of us would be able to convert the other, because neither would have any set of objective facts by which to make the persuasion.
They assume a designer at work, whereas we assume none. What's the difference?
On whose side do the scales of the evidence tip? What I see from a philosophical perspective is that they are balanced perfectly and tip to no side.
***
Response by Pim van Meurs:
Zenheadache argues that
"Natural selection starts off in the very title of its theory by assuming that nothing is guided by intelligence, and then labors to prove what has been assumed."
Actually the presumption that nothing is guided by intelligence is not an assumption but an observation and while some have misinterpreted natural selection to exclude intelligence, I would argue the opposite.
Zen: But I have not seen where intelligence has been ruled out. If we say that it cannot be, then to say that everything is due to natural causes is something of a con game.
Ignoring the ad hominem, I would simply point out that Zen may be arguing what is commonly known as a strawman, that is an argument not really proposed by proponents of Darwinian evolution and consequently knock down this argument.
One may of course work under the assumption that there is design in nature and wonder about the nature of the designer(s) but unlike natural selection, the data for such appears to be lacking. As I have shown in another thread, the evidence for natural selection has been quite extensively documented. In other words, there is no doubt that natural selection exists and plays a role.
Thus we compare evolutionary theory which proposes mechanisms which are actually observed versus an idea that life may have been designed but without much further explanation as to what/how/when.
One may on philosophical grounds object or accept such ideas but on scientific grounds all depends on a comparisson of the proposed hypotheses, falsification.
In fact I personally would argue that Darwinism does not reject design in nature (similar to Ayala and teleology in nature). I would merely point out that the teleology in nature can be explained by appealing to a designer in the form of variation and natural selection. In the end I do not believe that the issue is design in nature as much as nature of the designer.
Perhaps Zen may help me understand what he means by 'intelligence' and the claim that natural selection assumes that nothing is guided by 'intelligence'. Given the obviousness of intelligent design in our world, does this mean that Zen's 'intelligence' is perhaps transcendent to our universe?
***
Which brings us up to date.
***
Pim wrote:
"Actually the presumption that nothing is guided by intelligence is not an assumption but an observation and while some have misinterpreted natural selection to exclude intelligence, I would argue the opposite."
Pim, you are quite wrong. How exactly does one observe that nothing in nature is guided by intelligence? What does intelligence "look like" such that its recognized absence has been observed to be missing?
Pim wrote:
"Ignoring the ad hominem, I would simply point out that..."
Calling the idea that everything is the result of natural forces—natural meaning undesigned by intelligence—a "con game," is not an ad hominem. I would politely point out that Natural Selection is a theory, not a person, so it is not the type of thing that could be the recipient of an ad hominem attack. However, I will try to refrain from using colorful language that some might take personally, even though it is not directed to any individual.
As Pim continued:
"...Zen may be arguing what is commonly known as a strawman, that is an argument not really proposed by proponents of Darwinian evolution and consequently knock down this argument."
Pim, if you are a Darwinian, and Darwinians do not make the argument that nothing is guided by intelligence, then what does your previous quote mean? Once again, as you wrote:
"Actually the presumption that nothing is guided by intelligence is not an assumption but an observation and while some have misinterpreted natural selection to exclude intelligence, I would argue the opposite."
So it appears that what you say is a straw man argument that noone is making, is apparently one that “some” DO make, and which you both make yourself:
"Actually the presumption that nothing is guided by intelligence is not an assumption but an observation..."
And then which you count yourself among those as NOT making.
"...and while some have misinterpreted natural selection to exclude intelligence, I would argue the opposite."
So you seem to be arguing for BOTH.
Pim wrote:
"As I have shown in another thread, the evidence for natural selection has been quite extensively documented. In other words, there is no doubt that natural selection exists and plays a role."
Where natural means unguided by intelligence, and you meaning that, then I would say that you are utterly mistaken. You have NOT shown any such thing, and I don't even need to see what you have shown to say that. Because you see no guiding force behind the guiding forces which you reference does not mean that the guiding forces you do cite are themselves unguided by anything else.
I have no doubt that what you refer to may be "quite extensively documented," but from the "extensively documented" facts you refer to, and the conclusion that evolution is unguided by intelligence, is a leap of faith, not an observation at all.
I do, however, welcome you to make your case to the contrary.
Pim wrote:
"Perhaps Zen may help me understand what he means by 'intelligence' and the claim that natural selection assumes that nothing is guided by 'intelligence'. Given the obviousness of intelligent design in our world, does this mean that Zen's 'intelligence' is perhaps transcendent to our universe?"
Intelligence is intelligence. As far as I can tell, there aren't different types, although there are different degrees in animals and humans. That is all that I mean.
I do not know if intelligence is transcendent to our universe or not.
What I would say is that intelligence is a function of consciousness, and that consciousness is never the object of observation, but the observer behind the intelligence which can never be seen. That means the observer need not be transendent to the universe simply because the observer is invisible.
The observer that is your mind or my mind, for example, is not transcendent (I don't think), but neither is it visible.
This is true even with regard to all the things that have been intelligently designed in our own world. We see things that have been intelligently designed, but we have never made a single observation of "intelligence," where observation means "through the senses."
If you would say that we observe intelligence, or the lack thereof, then you would be equivocating on the meaning of observe, shifting between "observation" as sense data, and "observation" as deductions made from sense data.
[ 16. May 2004, 20:14: Message edited by: zenheadache ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 16. May 2004 20:45
This posting is largely unreadable. Perhaps Zen could use the quote tags to properly format his posting?
Let me first correct my statement
""Actually the presumption that nothing is guided by intelligence is not an assumption but an observation and while some have misinterpreted natural selection to exclude intelligence, I would argue the opposite."
Since Zen is using my careless statement to continue his strawman, let me restate it more carefully:
Natural selection is not based on any presumption that nothing is guided by intelligence rather it is based on observation.
Having corrected Zen's strawman claim and since my interests focus on exploring scientific issues not rethoric, I find little reason in Zen's statements to continue this discussion.
My reason for responding to Zen's posting was to correct an obvious flaw in his claim namely that natural selection assumes that nothing is guided by intelligence.
As I said elsewhere, it is not design in nature which is the issue but rather the nature of the designer. From a philosophical perspective Zen may be interested in the work by Ruse or Ayala which shows that teleology in nature is not unexpected.
In this context I see evolutionary theory providing testable and observable mechanisms supported by vaste amounts of data. If there is a guiding intelligence beyond the reach of science is theologically quite interesting but scientifically not very productive.
Btw Zen argues that his statement "But I have not seen where intelligence has been ruled out. If we say that it cannot be, then to say that everything is due to natural causes is something of a con game." is not an ad hominem because it is 'an idea'.
If that is the case then I wonder who is doing the 'saying that everything is due to natural causes' ?
Certainly following the strawman claim about natural selection, I feel correct in interpreting his statement as somewhat of an ad hominem. But that's a minor complaint compared to what I see as an incorrect claim about 'natural selection'.
[ 16. May 2004, 20:54: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
zenheadache
Member
Member # 1233
|
posted 16. May 2004 21:13
Pim, first, it is good that you have corrected yourself. Since I myself do not read minds, I had to assume that you meant what you posted as you posted it.
Second, whether or not my argument is a straw man really depends on who the "some" are that think ID and Darwinism are incompatible. If you intend to suggest that no Darwinians hold such a view, it is not very credible on your part.
Third, it may be true as you write in your corrected statement that
"Natural selection is not based on any presumption that nothing is guided by intelligence rather it is based on observation."
Which tells us nothing about whether or not there is some intelligence guiding what appears "natural," which in turn leaves the question alive.
Finally, you shot:
"Having corrected Zen's strawman claim and since my interests focus on exploring scientific issues not rethoric, I find little reason in Zen's statements to continue this discussion."
By the word "rhetoric" I will assume you mean philosophy, because philosophy is what we were doing. If you refer to doing philosophy pejoratively as "rhetoric," implying there is no deeper meaning, then your exploration of those scientific issues you are concerned with will be stained by the philosophical errors you may be prone to make.
Be more respectful. Science is one prince among many, not a King.
IP: Logged
|
|
zenheadache
Member
Member # 1233
|
posted 16. May 2004 21:22
Pim, it is a simple matter to attack an idea without attacking a person.
Some people MIGHT be offended by my attack of an idea if they are personally attached to it, and they would NOT feel so offended if they were NOT attached to it. There would be no ad hominem charge, for instance, if I said that about the ether theory, or possibly spontaneous generation. Of course, I cannot help what this or that person feels personally attached to. But by using colorful language, as I am prone to do, regarding an idea, I am not also attacking an individual, even though you might take offense at my comment.
[ 16. May 2004, 23:33: Message edited by: zenheadache ]
IP: Logged
|
|
zenheadache
Member
Member # 1233
|
posted 16. May 2004 23:24
So now we come back to the beginning.
What does the word NATURAL mean to the Darwinist?
Obviously, if we ever got to the point of explaining every thing and occurrence in the universe without the notion of an intelligent designer, then what good is having the notion that an intelligent designer is behind everything as an ultimate explanation?
It is not. If everything becomes understood without a designer, then the idea of a designer shall whither away as an obsolete folk concept from our ignorant beginnings which contributes nothing to our understanding of anything.
Our theories on that day shall all be naturalistic, and to try and deny that natural then does NOT mean "without intelligent guidance" is to indulge the true believers who simply do not know better.
While Pim may technically be correct in that the denial of intelligent guidance is NOT something found in Darwinist research papers, that is not the only sphere about which we ought to be concerned. What Darwinists BELIEVE is also important in shaping the world of the future, and these beliefs are NOT the subjects of Darwinist research papers, and yet they still have force. It is in the realm of the personal beliefs of the Darwinists, not their published research papers, that I suggest the idea of an intelligent designer is considered unnecessary, perhaps incompatible, and summarily dismissed.
And so I would like someone else to define what NATURAL means to the Darwinist.
If Pim's straw man allegation is that no Darwinist is making the case that natural selection and INTELLIGENT design are NOT compatible, then it seems to follow that ID and Darwinism OUGHT to be compatible.
If Pim cannot produce an example of this possible compatibility between ID and natural selection, then his straw man vanishes, because "the argument that noone is making" is made by the inability to make the two compatible.
And if they are incompatible, it shall be because the term "natural" excludes intelligence as the force behind selection, and then even if noone explicity makes this inference in a research paper, it is there implicitly, and again the straw man vanishes.
If intelligent guidance is rendered unnecessary by naturalistic explanations, then who, ultimately, will think it so?
No one.
And who on that day will bother to argue as Pim does that Darwinists do not argue against ID as a possible explanation—and that to say otherwise is a straw man fallacy—when the same conclusion has been reached by silence rather than assertion?
Again the answer shall be "no one," because the debate will by then be forgotten.
Theories are full of presuppositions, and presuppositions are by nature not explicit. But they are there.
[ 16. May 2004, 23:28: Message edited by: zenheadache ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Wilston
Member
Member # 336
|
posted 17. May 2004 00:04
Interestingly enough, this thread may digress into a discussion--once again--about whether it is important that we understand the nature of the designer, assuming one really does exist. For this topic, I believe these six questions should at least be addressed:
1.) What definition of intelligence are we using?
2.) Is intelligent design attributed only to a cognizant entity?
3.) Is natural selection actually/already intelligent?
4.) Must/are all designers be intelligent?
5.) If natural selection is intelligent, does this make it a disembodied designer?
6.) Is the designer embodied of disembodied?
I am aware that one or more of the questions above have been brought up at this forum, at least once, but I can’t help to think that they are, for the most part, still unresolved. At any rate, I am not expecting such questions to be completely resolved anytime soon.
In the meantime, I focus my attention towards Pim van Meurs’ initial post in this thread.
Pim writes: Natural selection is not based on any presumption that nothing is guided by intelligence rather it is based on observation.
My response: Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t it an implicit presumption, on the part of the *Darwinian biological evolution hypothesis, that there is no need for an inconspicuous intelligence to direct or guide evolutionary processes. Are you making that statement in an effort to make Darwinian evolution a one size fits all theory of biological origins? I am not quite sure why you make the above claim, but it certainly goes against the beliefs of many atheist evolutionists (e.g. Richard Dawkins and Richard Lewontin). Frankly, I find your above claim to be dubious, as it seems to have an evasive effect. In other words, since we don’t know about the nature of the designer, it doesn’t prevent someone from making a similar preemptive claim as your own. However, it certainly makes the question of the designer all the more significant. Intelligent design theory may allow for a disembodied designer, therefore, with the statement you have made above, natural selection may be intelligent or it is guided by some intelligence that we have yet to detect. Strangely enough, if it so turns out that natural selection is inherently intelligent, then intelligent design theory would seem pointless.
Pim writes: My reason for responding to Zen's posting was to correct an obvious flaw in his claim namely that natural selection assumes that nothing is guided by intelligence.
As I said elsewhere, it is not design in nature which is the issue but rather the nature of the designer. From a philosophical perspective Zen may be interested in the work by Ruse or Ayala which shows that teleology in nature is not unexpected.
In this context I see evolutionary theory providing testable and observable mechanisms supported by vast amounts of data. If there is a guiding intelligence beyond the reach of science is theologically quite interesting but scientifically not very productive.
My response: On the contrary, Darwinian biological evolution does not seem contingent on intelligence, so even the claim that teleology is not unexpected seems nil. I say this because anyone can give something a function, regardless of the fact if such a function is really legitimate or illegitimate. In other words, our assigning teleological attributes to something is generally subjective and/or objective, whereas our attributing intelligence to something should be objective (that is, based on a concrete definition of what constitutes intelligence). I fail to see how any observed teleology in nature demonstrates the possible intelligence of natural selection or has anything to do with the creative powers of natural selection. Further clarification on your part would be greatly appreciated. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Lastly, as for your statement about a guiding intelligence beyond the reach of science not being scientifically productive, you may be correct. Then again, such a statement attests to the epistemological limits of science. In effect, if it is not possible for us to definitively know whether an intelligent agency plays or played a vital role in our biological evolution, for all we know we may be going down the wrong scientific path. Let's hope we are not becoming fools.
Concluding remarks: This play on words, namely, the idea that natural selection could be a designer but may or may not be intelligent or guided by intelligence, sounds absurd. A demarcation line has to be drawn. The way I see it, natural selection is not a real designer by any stretch. At best, it is more of a preserver, and it is contingent on an organism’s natural ability to survive.
* Biological evolution is not the same thing as Darwinian biological evolution. Darwinian biological evolution--Darwinian evolution, for short--is a hypothesis about the mechanism that drives biological evolution. Biological evolution is a scientific fact, however, the Darwinian hypothesis has not been proven or extensively corroborated via empirical evidence. To further clarify, biological evolution is a well substantiated theory whereas Darwinian evolution is just a hypothesis/schema about how biological evolution--from a purely natural process--might have occurred.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 17. May 2004 12:51
Pim writes: Natural selection is not based on any presumption that nothing is guided by intelligence rather it is based on observation.
My response: Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t it an implicit presumption, on the part of the *Darwinian biological evolution hypothesis, that there is no need for an inconspicuous intelligence to direct or guide evolutionary processes.
Not really, the implicit presumption or observation is that natural processes are sufficient. However sufficient does not mean that no intelligence can be involved.
My response: On the contrary, Darwinian biological evolution does not seem contingent on intelligence, so even the claim that teleology is not unexpected seems nil.
I am not sure why you believe that teleology requires 'contingency on intelligence'. Or in other words, if evolutionary processes can be teleological, perhaps this makes them 'intelligent'? Teleology in nature, in the form of function, is to be expected from processes which involve natural selection.
From Ayala
quote:
Explanation by design, or teleology, is "the use of design, purpose, or utility as an explanation of any natural phenomenon" (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1966). An object or a behavior is said to be teleological when it gives evidence of design or appears to be directed toward certain ends.
Wilston: I say this because anyone can give something a function, regardless of the fact if such a function is really legitimate or illegitimate. In other words, our assigning teleological attributes to something is generally subjective and/or objective, whereas our attributing intelligence to something should be objective (that is, based on a concrete definition of what constitutes intelligence).
But we are not assigning intelligence to something when looking for design in nature, on the contrary, ID attempts to infer 'design' without having to assign and detect intelligence. Instead it depends on detecting the outcome of design, in this case function and probability. Whether or not the design inference is triggered depends on the probability we can assign to it. The probability however is quite subjective in that it depends on our depth of knowledge.
Wilston: I fail to see how any observed teleology in nature demonstrates the possible intelligence of natural selection or has anything to do with the creative powers of natural selection. Further clarification on your part would be greatly appreciated.
The appearance of (well-adapted) function is what would be expected from a theory involving variation and natural selection, hence teleology. If we take the next step and claim that teleology is indicative of intelligence then we have to include natural selection as such. But natural selection without the variation will fail to be very 'creative'. In a thread on the literature forum I am explaining how variation such a gene duplication, co-option can be 'creative'.
Wilston: Lastly, as for your statement about a guiding intelligence beyond the reach of science not being scientifically productive, you may be correct. Then again, such a statement attests to the epistemological limits of science. In effect, if it is not possible for us to definitively know whether an intelligent agency plays or played a vital role in our biological evolution, for all we know we may be going down the wrong scientific path. Let's hope we are not becoming fools.
If the 'guiding intelligence' is outside the reach of science then science cannot address (which means accept nor reject) such an idea. How would this lead science to going down the wrong scientific path is thus something that could benefit from some explanation. Let's say for instance that the 'designer' front loaded the universe, would this affect how science is done and would this cause science to go down the wrong scientific path?
Wilston: To further clarify, biological evolution is a well substantiated theory whereas Darwinian evolution is just a hypothesis/schema about how biological evolution--from a purely natural process--might have occurred.
More commonly and correctly I believe it would be to classify biological evolution as an observed fact whereas Darwinian evolution as an explanation of how life evolved is a theory based on known mechanisms and supported by significant evidence. Of course science never deals in proof but empirical evidence certainly corroborates or is consistent with natural selection having played a significant role. But natural selection is hardly to be expected to be the only relevant factor, neither now nor in Darwin's time. I see a significant role for neutrality in evolution providing both for robustness and evolvability.
Wiston: Concluding remarks: This play on words, namely, the idea that natural selection could be a designer but may or may not be intelligent or guided by intelligence, sounds absurd. A demarcation line has to be drawn. The way I see it, natural selection is not a real designer by any stretch. At best, it is more of a preserver, and it is contingent on an organism’s natural ability to survive.
It's more than a play on words. IF natural selection cannot be excluded as the 'designer' that is, IF the approach chosen fails to draw a demarcation line then such a design inference may not be sufficient to detect what we more commonly refer to as 'intelligent design' or in other words, such an approach would include natural selection as an intelligent designer.
Wesley Elsberry already pointed out this problem many years ago
quote:
This (the move from design to designer) is an inductive argument. Notice that by the second step, one must eliminate from consideration precisely those biological phenomena which Dembski wishes to categorize. In order to conclude intelligent agency for biological examples, the possibility that intelligent agency is not operative is excluded a priori. One large problem is that directed contingency or choice is not solely an attribute of events due to the intervention of an intelligent agent. The "actualization-exclusion-specification" triad mentioned above also fits natural selection rather precisely. One might thus conclude that Dembski's argument establishes that natural selection can be recognized as an intelligent agent.
[ 17. May 2004, 12:57: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Janitor@MIT
Member
Member # 125
|
posted 17. May 2004 14:39
Sorry, but I won’t even begin to attempt to follow the lengthy (and apparently selective) recreation of a previous conversation(s). But the question is interesting and should be explored "outside the box" of... well, you know who.
Looking into the box--In his personal correspondence (with Lyell) Darwin indicated that he used the term “natural selection” as the breeders used it and I presume he means he borrowed the term from them. They used it, as he says, to indicated those traits over which they had no conscious control. He does not elaborate, but his use of the term “natural” seems to be consistent with that of Dr. Dembski’s, e.g., “natural” meaning “unintelligent.” (?!)
My only problem with the use of “natural” in connection with “selection” (in this way) is exactly the problem Darwin was dealing with in his correspondence. (But never in his many revisions of Origin.) People understand “selection” to be a conscious, rational, deliberate, intelligent choice or action and therefore the term, as Darwin intended it to be understood is a bit oxymoronic. If it is oxymoronic does it even serve Darwin as a metaphor?
Darwin originally suggested "natural preservation." That doesn't help. He then opted for the very unfortunate term of, adopted from Spencer, "survival of the fittest." (Ya, know, whenever these basic terms and their definitions, redifintions, and worse, their "philosophical" conflations begin to multiply, ya gotta think that "theory" is not well grounded. And its not simply a problem for Darwin's readers. Its a problem for Darwin! And everyone else since... esp. the "Darwinists." LOL)
Is the real problem with the idea that "intelligence" is not "natural"? As I wrote, an idea shared by Dembski and Darwin? Darwin did, at least, explore the issue--that intelligence may "naturally" evolve. Dr. Dembski tells us that "ID" is an exploration for the "signs of intelligence" but w/o actually telling us what that means--"intelligence."
He does state that they can be found in "specified complexity." But I admit the existence of specified complexity (maybe not exactly as he means it) as a "bare fact" of biology.
It amts to a "statistic." For Dr. Dembski, a mathematician and statistician, design amts to a statistic and "nothing else." (I recently reviewed a math textbook for engineers. The author stated that the Laplce transform is a signature of design. Not a statistic, but a way to arrive at "statistics." Isn't that really what "design" is?)
For a designer (or any other scientist) this is unacceptable.
Statistics explain nothing.
[And, I just wanted to add, I can design a filter, as both Darwin and Dembski have done, to produce any outcome I want. The brain is a marvelous filter...]
[ 17. May 2004, 14:45: Message edited by: Janitor@MIT ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 17. May 2004 15:06
Moderators Note: Talk of myths and death knells wreaks of triumphalism and do nothing to further the discussion here at Brainstorms. Users who cannot tone down their rhetoric will not be invited to participate in our forum.
___________________________
Natural Selection is one of Darwin's Myths. It can easily be demonstrated not to be of relevance in speciation. Organisms that display characteristics that come in greater quantities than natural selection can account for are the death knell to Darwins selection hypothesis.
Bacteria of the genus Deinococcus are renowned for their resistance to huge doses of radiation. It is the most DNA damage tolerant organisms ever identified, and can tolerate several thousands times the lethal dose for humans. It can survive a phenomenal 15,000 grays of ionizing radiation, while doses below 10 Gy are lethal to all other organism. Although the genome of Deinococcus is fragmented into hundreds of pieces, the bug is still able to put it together without an intact template.
The mechanism? Deinococcus genome is tighly packed in latterally ordered DNA toroids, a structure that keeps radiation generated breaks together and facilitates template independent repair. Without the requirement for an intact template (Levin-Zaidman S, et al. Science 2003, 299:254-6).
It is hard to imagine how such a character could have evolved by a Darwinian mechanism. Darwinism requires an environment wherein an organism gradually evolves. For organism to evolve they require some sort of selective constraint. Darwinian theory explains traits according to the best adapted in a particular environment, but a highly radioactive environment has simpley never been present on earth. This must certainly mystified Darwinists. How did the bug get his tolerance to doses of radiation that it never experienced? A Russian team from the Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute in St Petersburg set out to figure it out, and tried to induce radiotolerance in the common gut bacterium E.coli. They blasted Deinococcus radiodurans with high levels of gamma rays, enough to kill 99.9 percent of them, let the survivors recover, and then repeated the procedure. Time after time. At the start of the experiment a hundredth of the human lethal doses was eneough to wipe out 99.9 percent of the bugs, but after 44 cycles the bacteria were 50 times more resistent to gamma rays. To induce radioresitance in E coli was much harder. But the researchers calculated that it would take thousands of cycles before E.coli was as hardy as Deinococcus. And, on earth it would take between millions and hundreds of million years to accumulate each dose (New Scientist 25 september 2002). From this experiment two obvious conclusions can be drawn.
First, Deinococcus' genome is prepared to become more and more resistent, while E.coli's genome is not. The DNA elements involved in radioresistance were present from the start of the experiment.
Second, the researchers believe that there are no restriction to genetic variation. These guys in St Petersburg must believe that when they throw a stone with a velocity of 50 kilometer per hour it lands on the Red Square 16 hours later (To be precise 15 hours and 37 minutes).
What is more, the principal researcher, Anatoli Pavlov, does not believe that there has been enough time on earth for Deincoccus to have evolved radio resistance, because life originated on earth about 3.8 billion years ago. (Talking about beliefs). He beliefs that Deinocococcus radiodurans evolved on Mars, travelled to earth on a Martian rock blasted into space by meteorite impacts (look up ref). On Mars, he conjectures, where radiation levels are much higher the bugs could receive the necessary dose in just a couple of hundred of thousands of years. Is this suppose to be science? No, this is story telling in the tradition of Darwin. A careful consideration of the bacterium's genome shows that it is related to other well known bacteria. And, why would the trait be stable on earth without the high level of radiation, i.e. without selective constraint?
I fully agree with John D: selection is a myth. Now is the time for a new theory.
Have a nice day,
Peebee
[ 20. May 2004, 08:08: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Petermann
Member
Member # 884
|
posted 17. May 2004 15:55
I've come to believe that with the advent of modern physics the terms "natural" and "naturalism" have lost their utility. Either that or they should be viewed strictly as religious terms.
The problem is that with modern physics it is impossible to come up with a scientific definition of these terms. In the days of Newton and before it was presumed that there were entities with intrinsic properties. There were things like space, time, matter and energy which had an independent ontological existence. These had "self natures" or "svabhavas" as the Indian philosophers called them.
Today things are very different. Science doesn't seem to have a grip on what reality is or where it comes from. Are electrons and quarks zero sized particles, Planck sized vibrating strings of energy, or some type of warped space-time? String theory can't even account for space-time itself. If science still doesn't have a clue about the underlying reality of our cosmos, what does "natural" or "naturalism" mean? Seems to me they really just become religious terms, slight-of-hand terms used to reject an intentional ultimate reality in the name of science without bothering to provide a scientific explanation. This is why the term "natural processes" when used in arguments is equally empty and misleading.
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 17. May 2004 16:05
J@MIT wrote quote:
They used it, as he [Darwin] says, to indicated those traits over which they had no conscious control. He does not elaborate, but his use of the term "natural" seems to be consistent with that of Dr. Dembski's, e.g., "natural" meaning "unintelligent." (?!)
I suspect "non-volitional" is a better gloss of Darwin's usage - no conscious end-directed choice, but not necessarily unintelligent. That solves J@MIT's perplexity about the potential oxymoron.
RBH
[ 17. May 2004, 16:06: Message edited by: RBH ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Janitor@MIT
Member
Member # 125
|
posted 17. May 2004 16:21
Sorry, RBH, but that doesn't solve my perplexity. A perplexity that I freely admit.
I beleive that the perplexity is due to me attempting to understand "design" in terms of what I have done. (And you also!)
I'm coming to the conclusion that's not possible. That even as the "IDers," as Dr. Dembski, want to make their thesis understandable (Or that's what they should want!)--they are doing the exact opposite!
IP: Logged
|
|
zenheadache
Member
Member # 1233
|
posted 17. May 2004 19:42
My ancient New Webster's Dictionary defines "intelligent" as:
"having the faculty of understanding and reasoning; rational; having a good intellect; having high intellectual capacities; showing good judgement; well informed."
My not so ancient Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary defines "intelligent" as:
"1a: having or indicating a high or satisfactory degree of intelligence and mental capacity b: revealing or reflecting good judgement or sound thought: SKILLFUL 2a: possessing intelligence b: guided or directed by intellect: RATIONAL"
The word intelligent comes from the latin, "intelligo," meaning "to understand."
My definition of intelligence falls in line with what is widely understood by the term. I call intelligence a function of consciousness. I hesitate to equate the two because I am unsure if they are the same. Still, I do not recognize any meaningful definition of intelligence that is unconnected to consciousness.
PIM should define what HE means by intelligence, since what he has in mind seems to diverge from what is commonly understood by the term.
Pim's notion of "intelligent" seems completely devoid of any consciousness, and with that gone it seems as if Pim is trying to take the distinguishing feature of ID OUT of ID by defining "intelligent" in such a way that it bears no resemblence to what is commonly understood by the term. It seems as if Pim is trying to Darwinize ID by equivocating terms.
***
Pim quotes Elsberry:
"In order to conclude intelligent agency for biological examples, the possibility that intelligent agency is not operative is excluded a priori."
That claim works both ways of course, and equally well whichever way you work it:
In order to conclude NON intelligent agency for biological examples, the possibility that intelligent agency IS operative is excluded a priori.
(please do not try to rebut me by substituting your own meaning of intelligent for what both Elsberry and I mean here, i.e., intelligence/consciousness)
As Elsberry continues:
"One large problem is that directed contingency or choice is not solely an attribute of events due to the intervention of an intelligent agent."
Oh really? And how does Elsberry know this exactly? Elsberry knows this because he has a priori excluded the possibility of intelligent agency for some observable events, specifically, those events which he thinks occur without the intervention of an intelligent agent.
Elsberry misses the possibility that the universe is unfolding according to an intelligent design which is automatic, thereby requiring no direct intervention, and yet preserving direct contingency or choice as the result of intelligent design.
***
Janitor, thank you for your assistance in defining the term "natural" according to Darwinism itself.
Natural does seem to be understood as unintelligent. And if the forces of nature are unintelligent, then they cannot also be guided by intelligence.
At the very least, Pim's contention that my definition of "natural," as "unguided by intelligence," is a straw man, is not a straw man at all, but a perfectly reasonable conclusion to make given what Darwinists think and say.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 17. May 2004 22:12
I appreciate Zen's feedback although it misses the point namely that his strawman:
"Natural selection starts off in the very title of its theory by assuming that nothing is guided by intelligence, and then labors to prove what has been assumed."
is incorrect.
In fact natural selection does not assume that nothing is guided by intelligence. I have explained this in detail and thus am somewhat surprised that Zen still seems to insist on this fallacy.
In fact Zen's representation of my argument is also fallacious as it does not accurately represent my claims
quote:
At the very least, Pim's contention that my definition of "natural," as "unguided by intelligence," man, is not a straw man at all
It should be obvious however that this was NOT Zen's claim to which I was responding.
I see little reason to continue this debate with Zen, merely will correct the errors in his claims and encourage him to read Wesley's contribution before making claims that do not logically follow from them.
Such as quote:
That claim works both ways of course, and equally well whichever way you work it:
In order to conclude NON intelligent agency for biological examples, the possibility that intelligent agency IS operative is excluded a priori.
Zen misses the point namely that science's approach is quite different from the approach chosen by ID which focuses on an eliminative approach. As Wesley shows, thus any conclusion of design (sometimes also confusingly called 'intelligent design') cannot exclude natural processes such as natural selection as its designer.
In fact, science does not a priori exclude intelligent agency thus I fail to see the relevance of Zen's comment.
Zen does gets close to the truth when he states that "It seems as if Pim is trying to Darwinize ID by equivocating terms." But he is blaming the wrong person for this equivocation. As I and others (Wes) have shown, the problem with 'intelligent design' is that it uses 'intelligent' in an equivocating manner since it cannot exclude natural selection as a 'designer'. This confusing usage of the term intelligence leads to a self contradiction as shown by Wesley.
Zen started of the thread by suggesting that natural selection assumes "that nothing is guided by intelligence". First of all, theories do not assume really but are based on assumptions, secondly as I have shown natural selection does nothing of the kind. In fact natural selection can happily coexist with artificial selection, intelligent agency and even a transcendent intelligence. All that the theory of natural selection does is proposing a way to explain the observation in nature. It does not do this by denying (a priori) that intelligent agency is impossible, merely it proposes a particular mechanism to explain the observations. Of course one can always argue that some 'intelligence' is pulling the strings, but such is of little relevance since such intelligence would remain invisible to scientific exploration for all practical purposes. So it should be obvious that natural selection does not only not assume that nothing is guided by intelligence but it is fully compatible with theological concepts such as for instance front loading.
As I stated before, I do not want to be dragged down into a discussion with Zen beyond correcting this strawman.
I am more than willing to explore Zen's interpretation of Wes's comments in another thread and explain why they miss the point but I do not want to have this thread be side-tracked by additional confusions.
Peter, I appreciate your comments but let me point out that I believe that ID can and should do more than making blanket claims like "Natural selection is a myth", especially in light of the vaste amount of supporting evidence that contradicts such a belief. Additionally may I point out to you that an appeal to personal incredulity is not really a scientific argument. I do like your choice of topic and rather than sidetrack the thread, I propose that you present your arguments in a separate thread in a positive manner worthy of this forum. May I point out to you that while you cannot seem to imagine how Darwinian pathways may explain this organism, science has proposed various interesting and plausible scenarios worth exploring. Before jumping to a conclusion based on incredulity let's at least wait until science has been given a chance to formulate its hypotheses and perhaps we can compare them with any contributions you may make.
A possible pathway would be the observation that the organism also is able to withstand long droughts and that this causes similar problems as with radiation. In other words, an interested would explore this possibility to see if it can be rejected or perhaps supported by additional data. An a priori rejection of the possibility of Darwinian pathways based on personal incredulity and before science has really put its teeth in it seems to lack in novel or positive contributions to our understanding of science.
For instance
quote:
Battista (127) have shown that the mechanisms by which D. radiodurans is able to tolerate and repair damage caused by ionizing radiation are also those that confer desiccation resistance to this organism.
...
The finding that ionizing radiation resistance may simply be a fortuitous by-product of the ability to survive prolonged desiccation has put to rest much of the controversy surrounding the origin and evolution of this species (127).
If Peter is interested in pursuing a more positive thread perhaps he can apply Dembski's Explanatory Filter to this organism and show how a design inference is triggered.
Back to Zen to correct another logical fallacy
quote:
Natural does seem to be understood as unintelligent. And if the forces of nature are unintelligent, then they cannot also be guided by intelligence.
In fact there is nothing that precludes forces of nature to be guided by intelligence. It happens all the time. In these cases intelligence can be both transcendent or refer to actual living organisms on our planet. An example would be front loading, an intelligence set in motion the laws which led to the formation and evolution of our universe. Intelligent guidance of natural processes. Additionally intelligence is known to use natural processes all the time. I assume that you have boiled water in your life time to give but one example.
Or in other words, natural means that intelligence is not necessary but not that intelligence can be ruled out. A subtle though very important distinction.
Whether or not intelligence did play a role is determined by actual evidence from a scientific perspective or faith from a religious perspective. For instance I am both a Christian and someone who believes that God created through natural law and in fact set in motion the laws forming this universe. From that moment however natural processes took over. Intelligent design at a theological level and scientist at a pragmatic level. Who says that natural selection precludes involvement of intelligence...
[ 18. May 2004, 00:47: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic