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.
Chris:
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.
Nelson:
Saying this or that that say this that say that because CSI is gibberish. Is
this really a response?
Chris:
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.
Nelson:
The key thing to ask is can natural processes produce CSI. Can natural
selection/random mutation produce CSI from scratch. That is something
evolution cannot do. Evolution works with things that are already lying
around.
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.
Nelson:
It has nothing to do with design. I admit no such thing below.
Chris:
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.
Nelson:
I don't know any one IDer who does that (yet). I am waiting for Uncommon
Descent which may discuss those subjects, but what some IDers do say is that
the basic body plans that charcterize phyla was designed. This is referring
to the Cambrian explosion of course.
Chris:
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)
Nelson:
No, information + information does not equal new information. It is simply
the reshuffling of old 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".
Chris:
So far, there is no evidence that there is *anything* in life that is
created from scratch.
Nelson:
Of course there is. That is the point of irreducibly complex systems. That
is what the data says about Cambrian phyla, the first cell even.
Chris:
What Behe calls "irreducible complexity," least of
all. Perhaps you should read his definition of "irreducible complexity."
Nelson:
I have been explaining it, and using it throughout my time here.
Chris:
The circularity of his argument is contained there right in the definition,
Nelson:
How so?
Chris:
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.
Nelson:
You are just handwaving, you are not being specific. If you want to propose
that these systems evolved you have give me a pathway to work with, show how
it is falsifiable, show how it can make predictions, what evidence supports
this proposal,etc. Also, natural processes must be able to make an IC system
from a non-IC system, so saying a complex structure to a complex structure
doesn't explain much.
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:
You are just agreeing with me. These people are actually intelligent agents,
using directed selection for future usefulness.
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?
Nelson:
I explained it in the previous response.
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.
Nelson:
Yes but thus far, no experiments have been successfully shown to produce CSI
that was was not rendered irrelevant by intelligent intervention.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 14 2000 - 14:03:34 EDT