At 10:44 AM 09/12/2000, you wrote:
Hey folks:
Went away this weekend will be responding to several posts hopefully today,
if not, sometime this week.
Chris:
Many ID advocates scoff scornfully at the evidence of
animal breeding, mathematics, information theory,
empirical genetics, and rigorously designed computer
evolution of information strings of various sorts, that all
demonstrate (beyond even a remotely sane objection to
anyone who actually knows anything about how these
things work and their results) that information *can* (and
indeed *does*) sometimes increase (by *any* measure of
information) via random variations in an existing string
of information.
Nelson:
Actually what they say is that natural processes cannot generate complex
specified information.
Since the concept of complex specified information is virtually gibberish,
and since it's pretty much an invention of Dembski, and since, in fact, in
the real world, many ID-folk actually *say* what I said above that they
say, I'm not at all sure why you say this.
But, further, as I showed in the rest of the post, random processes will,
given time enough and a cumulative process such as I describe, *do*
generate every *possible* string of information of a given length. This is
not open to serious question, because it is too trivial to refute.
However, what *may* rationally be in dispute is whether random processes
combined with *selection* can produce a particular type of information.
This depends on some details, but, mainly, it depends on the selection
mechanism. It has been proved, many times over, that random variations
combined with totally blind but systematic selection from a complex
environment will produce, to the extent that it is beneficial to the
strings of information in question, complexity in strings and in their
phenotypes.
It is possible, I think, to define an environment, or laws of "chemistry,"
etc., that do in fact prevent such complexity from arising in evolving
organisms. We can imagine, for example, a being who watches over evolving
organisms and selects *out* those that start to show signs of certain kinds
of complexity. But, in more naturalistic terms, we might imagine that
certain specific complex structures and information strings would not
evolve because there *is* an evolutionary gap that would be impossible (or
prohibitively improbable) to bridge via one smallish variation and yet such
that small variations could not be incrementally used to bridge the gap.
This is analogous to the following situation: You are standing, naked, in
a small steel cave on one side of a chasm, and there is a narrow steel
bridge across it, so you *could* walk across -- *except* for the fact that
there is raging flames shooting out of the chasm that make the bridge red
hot (and you have no shoes or other resources) and that would cremate you
within seconds if you tried to cross. Because you have *nothing* except
your body with you, and there are no other routes that are even physically
accessible to you.
*Now*: If you somehow appear on the far side of the chasm, it will be (if I
have defined the situation sufficiently well) because you had help of some
kind.
With respect to complexity, the corresponding question is: Are there any
structures, any organisms, anything in the world of life on Earth, that is
not merely complex, but complex in such a way and in such a context (mainly
historical) such that it could not have gotten to be the way it is via
a series of small steps, each of which *is* readily available to random
variation and which, given the numerousness of organisms of many species,
such that each small step is at least reasonably probable, if not
*extremely* possible?
Well, I think there *have* been many situations in which organisms would
have *benefited* by outside help in reaching a particular, more-complex
structure. But, they are hard to see, because these complex structures
didn't happen. The chasm was *not* crossed, because the particular steps to
be made were too large, or the all-at-once change in "design" was too large.
From a fine-detailed biological/genetic perspective, all current
complexity in organisms and in their genes appears to have been achieved by
small-ish steps. Steps small enough, at least, so that we see no evidence
of any form of true saltationism in the genes themselves.
At any rate, genetics, fossils, animal breeding, and the like, indicate
that complexity in organisms comes from numerous small changes, not from
truly large single changes that also produce large changes in the degree of
complexity of the organism.
Put another way, there is no evidence of any "complexity gap" (of *any*
kind of complexity) that simpler organisms could not bridge to greater
complexity without outside help of any kind. There is no evidence of any
life forms being created from scratch. Etc., etc., etc.
Chris:
The criticism that I've seen most often is that the
experimenter/animal breeder/computer programmer/etc.
is playing the role of the designer in these cases.
But, is this true (and, if it is in some cases, does it
*need* to be true for the same type of results to occur?)?
As usual, the short answer is No.
A longer answer is First, ID theory typically claims that
*their* designer is either creating new species (or new
"forms" of life -- as if a new species was not a new form)
Nelson:
No intelligent design theory does not claim that the designer is creating
new species.
Chris
Yes it does. Else there is no design. You admit this below. Creating new
phyla cannot be done without creating at least one new species, and some
ID-ers definitely claim that new species (such as man) are
created/designed, at least by intervention in ape genetics. Remember,
that's what the macroevolution issue is about. That's what the issue of new
genetic information is about. It applies to new phyla and "body plans" and
such, but to also to nearly *any* new species (only in a few cases would a
new species arise from *deleting* information from a genome; the rest are
from either replacing existing information with new information, or adding
new information)
Chris:
-- or manipulating the *variations* in an otherwise
self-running process. We have yet to see any new forms
spring from nothing, so this whole line of argument is
obviously without evidentiary basis (with one caveat that
I may deal with later).
Nelson:
The cell, and irreducibly complex machines , body plans that characterize
phyla are all systems made "from scratch".
So far, there is no evidence that there is *anything* in life that is
created from scratch. What Behe calls "irreducible complexity," least of
all. Perhaps you should read his definition of "irreducible complexity."
The circularity of his argument is contained there right in the definition,
since, by *definition,* he is not talking about the vast majority of
possible evolutionary paths to a particular complex structure, but *only*
those that involve evolving purely and only from simpler structures
directly to the structure in question. He does not even seriously
*consider* the virtual infinity of alternate pathways, such as evolving to
one complex structure directly and then evolving "sideways" to another
complex structure, thus bypassing the need to evolve directly to the final
structure. The entire thing hinges on his disingenuous definition of
irreducible complexity and on his *anti-*scientific refusal to seriously
consider alternative pathways, followed by the pretense of having proved
something of significance, when all he has really proved is that he is
either stupid or dishonest. Take your pick.
Chris:
The other line, that the designer manipulates variations to
insert otherwise-impossible information into the DNA,
combined with their claims that selection is unimportant
(which, in a sense it is) is, however *not* compatible
with their critique of the evidence mentioned above,
because the flaws in *those*
(if any) are in the *selection* mechanism, which they
also claim *cannot* put information into the DNA.
Nelson:
DNA itself is information, thus, it's design was also from scratch.
Chris:
So, then, if people breed animals entirely by selection
(which, until modern knowledge of DNA, they *did*), it
is obvious from their one premises that this method does
*not* constitute *design* in their sense.
Nelson:
Only if you use straw man and faulty premises like it was done in this
post.It is extremely important that when attempting to mimic natural processes
that you do not let "intelligence" do all the work thus rendering the
experiment irrelevant. This is an issue that is not only brought up by
design theorists but also by evolutionists:
Steven A. Benner, "Catalysis: Design Versus Selection," Science 261 (1993):
1402-1403; p. 1403.
Thus it is a _real_ issue not just an apologetic.
Chris
Can you tell me *exactly* what premise is faulty, and in *exactly* what
way? And exactly what you think my "straw man" is and *exactly* why you
think it's a straw man?
I think I mentioned that the variations could be controlled by a cosmic ray
detector to avoid having them be influenced by any known intelligence.
Since it is the variations that are at issue, by ID's own claims, this
should be sufficient, particularly since my claim applies even when there
is no selection at all.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 13 2000 - 08:33:04 EDT