Re: Fibbonacci and other mathematical patterns in shells

From: Josh Bembenek (jbembe@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Aug 17 2003 - 11:05:27 EDT

  • Next message: Jay Willingham: "Re: A "God" Part of the Brain?"

    Sarah wrote:

    "Your original claim, albeit phrased as a question, was
    that it is more difficult to claim a lack of intelligent
    intervention in a biological process (in this case, the
    patterns of sea shells) if the resulting traits lack an identifiable
    relationship to survival. Later you have
    qualified the claim to relate only to "random mutation and
    natural selection". (However you do not reiterate your
    claim, and I can't think of any way to do that that makes
    sense.) At this point it is entirely unclear to me what
    you mean, although you appeared to be setting "RM &
    NS" against "intelligent intervention" and to be making
    the claim naturalistic mechanisms cannot explain
    complexity that arises without apparent function"

    -Actually David's original unproven assertion was that there was no
    intelligent intervention involved ("despite being formed without intelligent
    intervention ") with respect to origins of clamshells and their patterns. I
    took this as meaning that one must understand that a RFEP type of
    explanation is the correct one for clamshell and pattern origins. Since the
    way ID people disagree with this is to postulate that IC cannot be explained
    by evolutionary mechanisms, David's statement disregards the veracity of an
    IC claim altogether (despite us not knowing what processes are involved in
    clamshell & pattern formation or how they evolved and whether they display
    apparent or actual IC). I felt his statement was irresponsible in light of
    the fact that everything else he stated was a statement of scientific fact
    (quotation of journals) and he offered his faith statement with no
    qualification. Founder effects etc. have not been shown to derive clam
    shell structures, so these are only possible mechanisms. See below for more
    on RM&NS.

    "ie " If we find extremely complex phenomena appearing all
    over creation that has no other purpose than to produce
    complex patterns and beautiful organization of shells, etc.
    it is much harder to suspect that naturalistic mechanisms
    continue to produce these in the absence of functional
    meaning."

    This is teleological thinking, and teleology has not been
    incorporated into science for many years."

    -The tradition of teleology in science lends no support as to whether or not
    it is correct to approach science in this way.

    "This is a historical development in science that is discussed in the
    preface of Futuyama's Evolutionary Biology textbook (which P. Johnson quoted
    grossly out of context in
    _Reason in the Balance_). When teleology was involved
    in science, appeals to metaphysical entities were common
    (eg, _Natural Theology_). The shift from looking at
    things in terms of secondary causes, or mechanisms, or
    whatever you want to call it, instead of in terms of
    function or purpose has simultaneously reduced the
    scope of science as a discipline and increased its
    productivity in terms of results (useful models that
    predict how things may behave and intersubjectively
    verifiable results.) You appear to be asking why science
    fails to solve a problem that it doesn't work on, and are
    dissatisfied that there is no answer."

    -I think science is absolutely working on this, I would place a reasonable
    bet that we'll see a clam species genome soon enough (if one isn't already
    available) and I'm sure many talented scientists such as David are
    interested in the problem. I also don't really think it has "failed" to
    solve the problem, simply hasn't gotten enough information on it yet.
    However, to bolster David's statement of faith, it would be more facile to
    use clearer examples.

    "My view is that it is more productive to raise public awareness of the
    *limits* of modern science, not to go back and increase science's scope."

    -Certainly an interesting approach, when you say public do you also mean
    "pop scientists"? It appears the Brights need as much education as the
    literal 7 day creationist.

    "What these limits mean is exactly what you finally say. No, naturalistic
    mechanisms and ultimate intelligent causation are not
    mutually exclusive. What's the argument, then? Why
    spend all this time criticizing the inadequacy of "RM &
    NS" to explain a phenomenum when that has not been
    offered as the explanation, and when the existence
    of naturalistic explanations doesn't preclude belief in
    design and a designer? David's original phrasing was
    I guess provocative, but not if you take the meaning
    that "intelligent intervention" means "only a miracle
    would get you from here to there" or as I think Van
    Till has described it, "God's hand-like action" was
    required. This is not a scientific answer. The scientific
    answer is "I don't know. Let's develop some tests to
    try to figure it out. Failing that, we just don't have
    an answer to this question right now".

    -Sarah I guess we disagree as to openness for allowing the type of
    intervention that ultimately cannot be described by secondary causes to be
    used actively by God during the creative process. With our ignorance I
    believe that "God's hand-like action" is a viable possibility, as viable as
    new laws that can explain the phenomena or an unforeseen evolutionary
    pathway. My focus on RM&NS is due to previous discussion about ID with
    David and others on the list. CSI and irreducible complex structures are
    supposedly examples of nature that cannot be explained by evolutionary
    mechanisms, and members of this listserve have previously argued at length
    that RM&NS is sufficient to explain their derivation. Thus, David's
    statement in support of RFEP is equivalent to stating that evolutionary
    mechanisms are sufficient to produce all features of clam shell origin and
    patterning. I have no recollection of anyone arguing how gene frequencies
    within a population explain their origin or assembly into IC structures, so
    your approach is unfamiliar to me. Perhaps you can expound how founder
    effect etc. can solve IC?

    "You further claim that

    "if RM&NS is the overall basis for understanding the
    origin of biological systems, "

    As regards evolutionary biology, this is so incomplete as
    to be grossly inaccurate!

    See, for example, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

    and
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html "

    -Again, I cannot see how population genetics solves IC. David's statement
    in support of RFEP is equivalent to denying the fact that clams or
    fibonacchi series ever require IC structures and/or those structures are
    easily solved by evolutionary mechanisms. Perhaps you can elaborate on how
    these additional mechanisms can solve IC, thus weakening the ability of any
    IDer to claim that God's Hand Like Action is necessary.

    "I just plain don't understand implication of this
    statement, and how it relates to whether and when
    it is appropriate to posit supernatural action as
    an explanation for natural processes. My "suggestions"
    are areas of standard evolutionary biology! They
    are well-known alternative mechanisms to NS! I have
    not even mentioned more speculative areas, such as self-
    organizing systems. I would not have responded at
    all except I read your comments as equating evolutionary
    biology with RM & NS, and that is quite simply
    inaccurate."

    -NS is never absent, a gene cannot be fixed or spread within a population if
    it causes its owner to die or become sterile. Neither will a gene continue
    to increase in a population if it causes a distinct disadvantage and no
    advantage whatsoever wrt NS. Once you elaborate how population genetics
    solves IC, things will be more clear.

    _________________________________________________________________
    Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
    http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Aug 17 2003 - 11:07:59 EDT