Dembski and Human Origins

Dembski is sounding more and more like a raving YEC Evangelist. Quote mining, egregious arguments he surely has to know are shakey, to say the least, etc.
I don't think he cares.

FYI-to the PT mods. The comment entry window is stretching off the screen to the right. It jumps back when you try to stretch the screen to accomodate it, but then returns to the stretched out window upon the first character entered. I can't even see the end of this sentence as I type it, it's a foot or more off the creen to the right.

The essay is apologetics at its most transparent. His arguments on DNA sequence similarity are a "difference in kind and not merely a difference in degree".

I have a question about our shared-with-chimps inability to synthesize vitamin C: Do gorillas and orangutans also lack the ability to synthesize ascorbic acid? Other primates?

I have a question about our shared-with-chimps inability to synthesize vitamin C: Do gorillas and orangutans also lack the ability to synthesize ascorbic acid? Other primates?

In particular, they argue that an evolutionary process unguided by intelligence cannot adequately account for the remarkable intellectual gifts of a William James Sidis

It was about a child prodigy who had possibly the highest intelligence ever observed, and who in his later life went nowhere.

All primates have a broken ascorbic acid gene. Gunea pigs also lack the ability to make their own vitamin C, but this is (iirc) just a coincidence.

— Ian

...the 98% similarity between Chimpanzee and human DNA, (actually, it is closer to 99.2%, when data from the human genome and chimp genome projects are compared.

"There's a young student at this university," says Lorber, "who has an IQ of 126, has gained a first-class honors degree in mathematics, and is socially completely normal. And yet the boy has virtually no brain."

While I agree that there are mistakes in Dembski's paper, it is sort of misleading to emphasize that fact that we share 99.2% of our genetic material with chimps. We share 33% with daffodils, but no one ever uses that in argumentation. I am not saying that I deny that we share 99.2% of our genetic material with chimps, I am just saying that the statement lacks perspective and it isn't really the most convincing. I think the most convincing arguement that humans and chimps share ancestory is the fact that we both have identical genetic errors. The probability of us both having these errors independent of each other is ridiculously small. It's hard to argue with a fact like that.

I also wonder if the Sidis example, along side Mother Theresa, was an attempt to try to take religion back out of it so his discussion wouldn't seem religiously biased on first glance. Sidis himself was a staunch athiest, according to one biography site. (MT herself really was little more than an extreme case of perserverance and willpower, not anything directly "miraculous" nor a type of person that needed to be "designed" -- statistics could show that type of person as being quite common throughout history. Religion may be the most common originator for an individual's drive for positive societal change, but its hardly the only one.)

Also, I do note a tendency for IDers to only accentuate the positive. They talk about the complexity of aspects of life, like the human immune system, and yet do not talk about the flaws in it that make it dangerous to the host human, such as MS or Leukemia. Similarly, the blog-clotting system often gets a mention, without discussion of how it is responsible for heart attacks and strokes in otherwise utterly healthy people.

So not mentioning the flaws at the genome level is just part of a larger picture of ignoring the flaws of all biology in favor of a 18th century image of catagorical, idealistic perfection (which itself was inherited by the 18th century fascination with greek philosophy), all part of some overall vision of undoing the entire 19th century of science and thought (vis a vie associating Darwin with Freud and Marx which is a common writing among anti-evolutionists).

Such a vision itself is flawed, as it doesn't recognize the aspects of the works of Freud and Marx that were in fact scientifically or sociologically correct, such as Freud's emphasis on physiological or developmental conditions being a source of abnormal behaviour rather than "Demons", or Marx's analysis of the flaws of unfettered capitalism as demonstrated in the events leading up to the great depression or in the current state of small-town america being destroyed by the rise of the walmarts.

In the end, therefore, ID remains unscientific, since it filters out which data it wants to consider for supporting its hypotheses, rather than developing a hypothesis that fits all of the data.

Not that you all didn't already know that. :)

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom_2.gif

Wow. Can we force those who doubt the close relationship between humans and apes to wear t-shirts with this picture on it? Heck, can I get this on a t-shirt to wear for myself?

Wow. Can we force those who doubt the close relationship between humans and apes to wear t-shirts with this picture on it? Heck, can I get this on a t-shirt to wear for myself?

"Similarly, the blog-clotting system often gets a mention, without discussion of how it is responsible for heart attacks and strokes in otherwise utterly healthy people.
"

Wow! These website renovations really are serious! ;)

Chimps are not like humans

By lining up chimp chromosome 22 and human chromosome 21 and comparing them nucleotide by nucleotide, the consortium found instances in which one nucleotide was substituted for another in only about 1.44% of the sequence. The chimpanzee chromosome has been sequenced to an accuracy of less than one error in 10⁴ bases, so sequencing mistakes account for less than 1% of the observed single-nucleotide mismatches. There is also an impressive number (68,000) of small to large stretches of DNA that have been either gained or lost (these are called "insertions or deletions", "indels" for short) in one species or the other. . . . Given the broad similarities between chimps and humans, many researchers thought that changes that alter amino-acid sequences would not be very frequent. Surprisingly, however, the consortium found that sequence differences in the protein-coding regions of genes are not a great deal less common than in non-coding genomic regions. But some of the affected genes might be pseudogenes --- defective copies of functional genes --- that have arisen recently. And, among 231 presumably functional genes that could be compared between chimps and humans, 179 have protein-coding regions of identical length; 140 of the predicted encoded proteins would differ by one amino acid or more, but probably with little or no functional impact. Of the other 52 genes, however, 47 show more significant structural changes.

Dembski points out that whenever one explains how a piece of evidence is consistant with the evolutionary hypothesis, one is "presupposing evolution". Thus refuting all arguments in favor of evolution. Not a bad trick.

Next Dembski will start complaining that there aren't enough "transitional" sequences between lineages.

Dembski might also reconsider the "remarkable moral goodness of a Mother Teresa," if this piece by Christopher Hitchens is to be believed.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090083

As Hitchens, in his usual, irascible way, puts it:

"She was a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud, and a church that officially protects those who violate the innocent has given us another clear sign of where it truly stands on moral and ethical questions."

Among the catholics, being only "a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud" makes her pretty upstanding.

Oh no! John Bracht is a very intelligent compatriot of mine at UCSD. It's rather distressing to see his name acknowledged on Dembski's work. Bracht does some great stuff with C. elegans and never fails to make an insightful comment. Dembski's paper fall far short of what I'd expect from his support.

The part about ethics really frosted me--Dembski first states the selfish gene ideas, which describe people like Mother Teresa as the product of a population that has been bred to contain a proportion of population-serving individuals. But, then, without telling us, he reverses course and says explicitly that evolutionary theories would regard Mother Teresa as a freak of nature.

Let me apply some evolutionary psychology to Dembski: there's always a certain tolerance for cheaters in the population. People like Dembski can go around telling others what they want to hear (that is, Dembski is cheating) and the thing that will ultimately limit such behavior is its own detrimental effects on the populations that allow it. There was a really bad example of that in Stalinist Russia, as I read about on this site a while back...

Dave

This is over the top even for Dembski!

No one can really tell what someone truly believes, of course, especially if that someone is as liberal with the English language as Dembski. So with all due respect to those of you who think that Dembski is a closet YEC or OEC, I still think that he privately accepts evolution, in its scientific definition if not his fantasy one that "explicitly rules out intelligence." At the very least he accepts common descent, despite this masterpiece of misrepresentation (note his "yet to reach a consensus" admission in the conclusion). What he wants his audience to conclude is, of course, another thing entirely.

As of his April 2004 debate with Niall Shanks, Dembski still maintained that Michael Behe accepted common decent, and as usual gave no clue to his own position. He did allude to the tired old Cambrian explosion incredulity argument, but that has no bearing on human/chimp common ancestry (other than to fool the audience). In the past Dembski has exploited the fact that Behe knows more biology than he does. Now that he is playing the Phillip Johnson outsider role and second-guessing Behe, he needs to do one or more of the following:

1. Challenge Behe directly on common descent. Caveat: The Discovery Institute has been under increasing pressure to come up with a model, and common descent simply will not do with the literalist audiences, so it's possible that Behe may be forced to recant soon if he hasn't already.

2. Come up with compelling positive evidence of independent abiogenesis for one or both lineages. After all, we still need to know how the designer did it if not by speciation.

3. Admit that the essay is just a "devil's advocate" exercise, and that the implied alternative - independent abiogenesis - is the real extraordinary claim -- with or without a designer.

The results reported this week showed that "83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee---only 17% are identical---so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect," Sakaki said.

The researchers report in Nature1 that many of the differences were within genes, the regions of DNA that code for proteins. 83% of the 231 genes compared had differences that affected the amino acid sequence of the protein they encoded. And 20% showed "significant structural changes".

Well at least this proves that DNA does have some function.

Jack,

Exactly what light did M_M shed? "Chimps are not like humans" is hardly an incisive comment.

I would suggest that an incisive comment might be, "Inanimate man-made contrivances are not biological organisms," and further, that "Extrapolations cannot be made from the former to the latter without a valid basis being first established."

If you have a dispute with this, take your best shot.

So Dembski is now taking on the ultimate icon- human evolution(I wonder why not primate evolution as a whole? maybe his reading assistants didn't have enough time to write up crib sheets and flash cards?) This essay is sloppy even considering Dembski's abysmal standards. If Dembski wants to offer up a serious critique of evolution by examining the case of a certain religious "mercy worker" he should spend time reading Hitchens on the lady. There's an even better account of the miracle work and saint in waiting - Read it at www.meteorbooks.com. The author Aroup Chatterjee was one of the producers of the Channel 4 documentary that Hitchens hosted.
Aetheists and secular humanists have as a class exhibited genuine altruism when compared religious extremists. One has to only compare Bertrand Russel to his intellectual inferior CS Lewis. As Jeffrey Shallit puts it if (anyone) compared Russel to Lewis even in imaginary debate, Russel would clean out Lewis's clock! Wonder what produces outstanding intellectuals like Russel? Maybe intelligent design works sometimes after all!

Oh no! John Bracht is a very intelligent compatriot of mine at UCSD. It?s rather distressing to see his name acknowledged on Dembski?s work. Bracht does some great stuff with C. elegans and never fails to make an insightful comment. Dembski's paper fall far short of what I'd expect from his support.

The MESA program is a generic model of an evolutionary process, and grants the evolutionary process the best possible fitness function: one that is smooth, and gradually slopes up to a single, unique, global optimum. (Emphasis added)

Evolutionary computation occurs in the behavioral repertoire of organisms but is also used to account for the origination of certain features of organisms. It would be helpful to explore the relationship between these two types of evolutionary computation as well as any design intrinsic to them. My work in chapter 4 of No Free Lunch lays out some of the theoretical groundwork here. Besides theoretical work in this area, we need a large contingent of ID computer programmers who can write and run computational simulations that investigate the scope and limits of evolutionary computation. One such simulation is the MESA program (Monotonic Evolutionary Simulation Algorithm) due to Micah Sparacio, John Bracht, and me. (http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idprospects.htm)

You guys are the experts. So, I write with deference to your wisdom. But it seems to me that comparing chimp DNA with human DNA assumes that DNA is the relevant common-property of comparison. But why choose DNA? Shouldn't physics have a say in this? If so, then at the most basic level of material constituency, chimps and humans have 100% in common. But so does Britney Spears and the tree, materially speaking, of course.

Why choose biology over physics or cognitive psychology or philosophical anthropology?

You guys are the experts. So, I write with deference to your wisdom.

It seems to me that comparing chimp DNA with human DNA assumes that DNA is the relevant common-property of comparison. But why choose DNA? Shouldn't physics have a say in this? If so, then at the most basic level of material constituency, chimps and humans have 100% in common. But so does Britney Spears and the tree, materially speaking, of course.

Why choose biology over physics or cognitive psychology or philosophical anthropology?

I'm suspicious that this guy is a real creationist. Is anybody really this clueless?

Exactly what light did M_M shed? "Chimps are not like humans" is hardly an incisive comment.

It seems to me that comparing chimp DNA with human DNA assumes that DNA is the relevant  common-property of comparison.  But why choose DNA?  Shouldn't physics have a say in this?  If so, then at the most basic level of material constituency, chimps and humans have 100% in common. 

— Frank

But so does Britney Spears and the tree, materially speaking, of course.

Why choose biology over physics or cognitive psychology or philosophical anthropology?

It seems to me that comparing chimp DNA with human DNA assumes that DNA is the relevant common-property of comparison. But why choose DNA? Shouldn't physics have a say in this? If so, then at the most basic level of material constituency, chimps and humans have 100% in common. But so does Britney Spears and the tree, materially speaking, of course. Why choose biology over physics or cognitive psychology or philosophical anthropology?

Jack,
You said "MM provided a link to an article originating in Nature which revealed that 83% of the genes in chimp chromosome 21 were different from orthologous human chromosome 22." Not in this thread he/she didn't - the post, in its entirety, was "Chimps are not like humans."

Not in this thread he/she didn't - the post, in its entirety, was "Chimps are not like humans."

When I see supposedly scientific minds insisting that random self-assembly is the cause and maintenance of all life, despite evidence to the contrary

You guys are up against a wall and your dull retorts are running out of steam.

Even more incredible: ".... And yet the boy has virtually no brain." Surely impossible.

You guys are the experts. So, I write with deference to your wisdom. But it seems to me that comparing chimp DNA with human DNA assumes that DNA is the relevant common-property of comparison. But why choose DNA? Shouldn't physics have a say in this? If so, then at the most basic level of material constituency, chimps and humans have 100% in common. But so does Britney Spears and the tree, materially speaking, of course. Why choose biology over physics or cognitive psychology or philosophical anthropology?

RBH, thanks - it didn't occur to me that that might be why is was blue.

Jack, my apologies.

This radically revises assumptions of chimp-human genetic identity based on the 99% parity in base pairs between chimps and humans.

I agree with Dembski that the differences between apes and humans are much more marked than their similarities.

...science has now revealed that at the rock bottom level of our genetic constitution humans are indeed very different from chimpanzees.

MM provided a link to an article originating in Nature which revealed that 83% of the genes in chimp chromosome 21 were different from orthologous human chromosome 22.  This radically revises assumptions of chimp-human genetic identity based on  the 99% parity in base pairs between chimps and humans.

But why choose DNA?

— Francis J. Beckwith

Why choose biology over physics or cognitive psychology or philosophical anthropology?

About brains and mental functioning: one type of mental deficient, the nanocephalic dwarf, possesses a very small head and correspondingly tiny brain but retains the ability to speak and understand true language. Back in 1967, the linguist Lenneberg pointed to these people as evidence that it was not sheer size but something about the organization of the brain that made language possible. Nobody except the Wizard of Oz is claiming you can think without a brain---that's really a strawman argument.

Jack: MM provided a link to an article originating in Nature which revealed that 83% of the genes in chimp chromosome 21 were different from orthologous human chromosome 22. This radically revises assumptions of chimp-human genetic identity based on the 99% parity in base pairs between chimps and humans. The article was in May 2004. In his article Dembski criticizes evolutionists for stressing the similarities between apes and humans while ignoring or glossing over their preponderent differences. I agree with Dembski that the differences between apes and humans are much more marked than their similarities. The fact that this difference, until now, was not reflected in observed DNA differences between chimps and humans always puzzled me. But lo and behold, in its admirable pursuit of truth, science has now revealed that at the rock bottom level of our genetic constitution humans are indeed very different from chimpanzees.

Wow.  That is incredible.  What then explains the phenomenal differences between humans and chimps?  It obviously isn't down to DNA.  Do we know what the 0.8% that is unique to us produces?

— Jack Shea

MM provided a link to an article originating in Nature which revealed that 83% of the genes in chimp chromosome 21 were different from orthologous human chromosome 22. This radically revises assumptions of chimp-human genetic identity based on the 99% parity in base pairs between chimps and humans.

In his article Dembski criticizes evolutionists for stressing the similarities between apes and humans while ignoring or glossing over their preponderent differences. I agree with Dembski that the differences between apes and humans are much more marked than their similarities. The fact that this difference, until now, was not reflected in observed DNA differences between chimps and humans always puzzled me. But lo and behold, in its admirable pursuit of truth, science has now revealed that at the rock bottom level of our genetic constitution humans are indeed very different from chimpanzees.

You guys want to wage war with straw men.

What will the others tell us? Our common ancestor was a daffodil?

M_M, Francis Beckwith, and Bill Dembski prefer propositional logic to understanding models and their dynamics. It's startling to realize how little Dembski seems to understand of DNA sequences. Any research scientist will tell you that propositional logic, in the absence of models and experimental testing, can lead one far astray (e.g. from humans to daffodils). Undue reliance on propositional logic is an indicator of an unscientific (perhaps legalistic) mind.

MM provided a link to an article originating in Nature which revealed that 83% of the genes in chimp chromosome 21 were different from orthologous human chromosome 22. This radically revises assumptions of chimp-human genetic identity based on the 99% parity in base pairs between chimps and humans.

Great post, Ian. I'd like to post the side-by-side chromosome comparison for the benefit of readers:

Human, Chimp, Gorilla, Orang, right-to-left:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom_2.gif

A comparison of all of the chromosomes of the four species is here: http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chro.all.html (Index -- Exercise)

Here are a bunch of different comparisons of human-chimp DNA using different methods (all get % DNA identity results in the high 90's).

Dembski also disses the fossil evidence for human evolution. I wonder how he would compare to other creationists, who can't even consistently decide which fossils are human and which are ape (see this Comparison of Creationist Opinions.

Here is one convenient graphic of some of the fossils:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

See also here for a nice for rebuttal to creationist claims on hominids: Claim: All hominid fossils are fully human or fully ape

A comparison of all of the chromosomes of the four species is here

— Nick

I now have a higher resolution of this figure as a pdf on my site. http://blog.rufus.ws/files/YunisPrakash_1982_Fig2.pdf

He's back - the Prince of Vagueness.

Even though significant variations from the norm in brain structure are generally associated with severe disruption of function, conceivably as long as the proper neurons communicate with the proper neurons, it might still work. (Isn't this something like what a "hopeful monster" might look like? What makes you so sure this isn't the potential step in a new evolutionary direction you're so confident doesn't exist among the 6.4 billion humans?)

ME: I agree with Dembski that the differences between apes and humans are much more marked than their similarities. YOU: What can this possibly mean??? 

How different is "very" different? No matter how you define difference/similarity, humans are a hell of a lot closer to chimps than rats are to mice.

Good commentary on ID and legalistic thinking.

Jack's comments above are a good example of apologetics (starting with a conclusion and selecting evidence to support it). This is common religious thinking, but science trains people to put evidence first. DNA sequences are especially valuable for comparisons because they contain vast amounts of information and consequently can't be "preselected"

If, for example, you compared the text of two books and found that 83% of the sentences in one book differed from the corresponding sentences in the other book by a letter or a word, you could conclude that 83% of the sentences were technically different while still concluding that the two books shared a 99% or similarly high degree of similarity when compared letter by letter. In such a case, by far the most obvious conclusion would be that one book was copied from the other.

Jack Shea writes:

> Terms such as these - caliber of Shakespeare, linguistic sense - make little sense objectively. They are useless in any scientific discussion. And unless you can point out two real books rather than imaginary ones your comparisons are pointless. Les Lane has it right about apologetics.

You aren't offering anything different from alchemy (the search for the quintessence) or the more recent search for the "vital force" during the turn of the 19th-20th century. "Information" in the ID sense is very old hat. There was considerable debate among the "Vaisheshikas" and the "Samkhya" two schools of philosphers in ancient India (well before 500 BCE). Buddha in a turn toward rationalism dismissed this as idle speculation maintaining that it is worthless to discuss entities that cannot be explained with the logic available at the time.

Please don't get started on this dead end once again.

How different is "very" different? No matter how you define difference/similarity, humans are a.hell of a lot closer to chimps than rats are to mice.

Are you serious? OK, since you've offered me total freedom I'm taking culture and capabilities as my marker.

— Jack Shea

. . . science has now revealed that at the rock bottom level of our genetic constitution humans are indeed very different from chimpanzees

Jack-

In scientific arguments, apologetics are worse than unconvincing. If my gist is obscure, I can be more specific.

Hi. Let me introduce myself first and explain what my horse is is this race-since this is my first time posting here. I'm an economist by training, with a strong background in economic anthropology and economic history. Since I teach in a small understaffed Social Sciences Department (as opposed to an economics department) I also teach Cultural Anthropology. Over the last few years I've invested a considerable amount of time self-teaching myself some basic Biological Anthropology.

What bothers me about Dembski's article are two things. First, is the bizarre way he sets up the Hamlet quotes. Though I lack any formal training in Biology, the error(s) are immediate and apparent. That said, I'll leave it to the Biologists to point it out (which they have).

The second thing that bothers me is that he goes way, way, way out on a cultural anthropology limb. I'd have to monopolize this forum or invest all my time refuting him in a whole paper so let me point out one or two errors that are indicative of what he says.

Firstly, let's look at linguistic evolution and rethink the Hamlet quotes. It is exactly these "small mutations" in languages that lead to language change over time. Change onle letter in verb "Face" (pronounced Fah-chay) to "H" and you have "Hace" (pronounced Ah-say). Hence the difference (or one of them anwyay) between Spanish and Romanian, both descended from a common ancestor, Latin. So here is morphological change from one isolated mutation.

Secondly, citing Chomsky on primate language and primate cognition is misleading. Chomsky's theories about language (deep, innate structures of the mind) is controversial in and of itself (though not implausible). But Chomsky is known as the ultimate "debunker" of primate communication experiments.

These are just two examples that jumped out at me immediately. There's a lot more, but they all follow this sort of basic error-not really understanding the arguments about economic history and economic anthropology.

"We choose biology because we are studying biology."

— Reed

Jack-

In scientific communication, apologetics are worse than unconvincing. If you find this too vague, I can be more explicit.

Jack-

In scientific communication, apologetics are worse than unconvincing. If you find this too vague, I can be more explicit.

Firstly, let's look at linguistic evolution and rethink the Hamlet quotes. It is exactly these "small mutations" in languages that lead to language change over time. Change onle letter in verb "Face" (pronounced Fah-chay) to "H" and you have "Hace" (pronounced Ah-say). Hence the difference (or one of them anwyay) between Spanish and Romanian, both descended from a common ancestor, Latin. So here is morphological change from one isolated mutation.

While pointing out to creationists that humans are genetically most similar to chimps is helpful, pointing out that chimps are more similar to humans than they are to gorillas has much more of an impact.

Why would a god create chimps to appear more closely related to us than to gorillas?

And now we have this "Jack Shea" character. Are there REALLY a fair number of these creationist/ID apologists and think-they're-so-witty posters? Or are they actually the same, exasperatingly dull pest?

When, several years ago, I first began following the "debate" on this issue, I realized that the charm of discussing a question with either a blantantly, often proudly, dishonest IDot or an unreasoning and unimaginative Xian fanatic lost its charm very quickly: they had nothing to offer, and certainly nothing to lose.
However, their questions would, often enough, elicit interesting information and descriptions about details of biology and evolution I, as very much the layman, would otherwise never have understood, or even noticed.

Even this pleasure has apparently been taken, due to the petty and insulting clevernesses of these "Jack Shea" characters, the Wile E. Coyote, "Supergenius" of the issue.

Dear "Jack" --

Impress me by showing a gram's worth of honest interest and sincerity, along with your silly quips and dirty swipes.

Geez Russell, just look around. What is the magnitude of difference between Beethoven and his orchestra (extension of Beethoven's mind/body) and the smartest collection of chimps that has ever lived? The entirety of recorded human history compared to chimp history? We are to chimps as gods are to us. It's an entirely different ballgame. We have gross physical similarities to chimps and they possess the most rudimentary of our mental characteristics but there the match ends. We can't exclude human cultural achievements in our chimp-human comparison. Otherwise it's like comparing a photograph of a chimp with a photograph of a human and concluding they are remarkably similar based solely on photographic evidence. This is where I support Dembski. The oversimplification of "human" makes it easier to propose an ancestral linkage than it is if everything "human" was taken into account.

I was going to write something more extensive. But to save time, and in the spirit of Dembski's "Backlash" paper, let me just say that prof. Dembski should not change a word of this essay. Every argument he makes is cogent, accurate, and devastating to the evolutionist position.

The existence of outliers along the bell curve of human intelligence & human altruism does prove that neither human-scale intelligence nor human-scale altruism could have evolved from species whose bell curves were centered at a lower point than ours.

The existence of at least one microcephalic person who has above-average intelligence proves that our big brains are superfluous.

His understanding of DNA comparisons is spot-on. (Don't listen to the mean-spirited evolutionary snipers on this thread!)

His claim that the ability to do complex, symbolic mathematics couldn't have evolved from simpler, somewhat less-abstract math is compelling.

Finally, his claim that our sense of self-worth depends on how we came to be humans rings true. I often ponder whether I am worthy of respect, and the answer always comes down to whether my parents planned to produce me or if I was merely a "suprise". Since they insist that my birth was indeed planned, (and only because of this,) it follows that I am indeed worthy of respect.

Yes, it's exactly perfect as-is. Ship it, professor!

p.s. If I had one suggestion to make, I'd say you should rely even more on quotes by Noam Chomsky. You should also refer to him often when speaking to ID-friendly audiences. Trust me, they'll love you for it!

We have gross physical similarities to chimps and they possess the most rudimentary of our mental characteristics but there the match ends. (Jack Shea)

In Post 4165 Jack Shea ends one paragraph:

"Argument from incredulity? Well, yeah. Call me Mr. Incredulous. "

and begins the next one:

"It seems to me that evolution proceeds by very intelligent means somehow lurking within the fabric of living systems themselves."

Jack, may I assume that you still think that there are boundaries to this evolution, such that may prevent a common ancestral species from diverging in to human and chimp lineages? This, despite the fact that Dembski asserted that the designer could create these lineages anyway He wanted? If so, please tell us of which of these two scenarios you are more incredulous:

1. Sometime in the last 6 million years, possibly much more recently, the designer assembled many multicellular eukaryotes, either as zygotes or perhaps more fully developed, out of some inanimate matter. Some of these populations had many genetic and anatomic similarities, but very different levels of intelligence.

2. Sometime around 6 million years ago two ancestral species wandered apart. Evolution occurred as usual in both lineages. After many generations the populations could no longer interbreed. In one lineage the designer saw to it that some of the genetic changes, though quite minor in number and extent (at least one fusion and several inversions), crossed some critical barriers in terms of processing, and that lineage acquired intelligence.

Yes, there are other conceivable options, but I am only interested in how you rank these two, because we all know that #1 is what most people infer when they buy those incredulity arguments against common descent. And these are essentially what Dembski proposed in his "modified monkey, modified dirt" discussion (and still left us guessing as to what his position is).

How brilliant of my scientist friend Jack to seize on culture as yet another example of where we are Irreducibly Different than chimps. For example, I like to hang out at Borders and read Evangilical Today, and drink some coffee. Meanwhile pygmies in Cameroon live in the forest and talk like Oooga Booga. Do you satanic Evilutionists think that those pygmies will randomly assemble a Borders anytime soon, with working electrical outlets, cash registers, and total supply-chain management? Of course not. We are Incomparably Different in cultural terms, it is not possible that pygmies are at all related to humans. That's irrefutable.

In the many generations of pygmies which have been studied (there are an estimated 100,000 pygmies, so that's 100,000 generations) has anyone ever seen a pygmy spontaneously turn into a K Street stockbroker, with matching suspenders and tie? No, and that disproves Evilution.

In case nobody's made the point recently, Noam Chomsky is not an anti-evolutionist. One can very well deny that the great apes possess syntactical abilities truly comparable to humans without implying that we are the result of a miracle. I used to know a nun who wrote a master's thesis claiming that Chompsky's ideas evinced divine intervention, but that tells you more about nuns than about linguistics.

How brilliant of my scientist friend...

— Steve posing as Creationist Timmy

Oops. In Comment 4207 I meant to say "Sometime around 6 million years ago two *populations of an ancestral species* wandered apart."

> Terms such as these - caliber of Shakespeare, linguistic sense - make little sense objectively. They are useless in any scientific discussion. And unless you can point out two real books rather than imaginary ones your comparisons are pointless.

There was considerable debate among the "Vaisheshikas" and the "Samkhya" two schools of philosphers in ancient India (well before 500 BCE). Buddha in a turn toward rationalism dismissed this as idle speculation maintaining that it is worthless to discuss entities that cannot be explained with the logic available at the time.

What was higher than expected was a) the number of mutations with possibly significant effects on protein structure/function (about 20% of the proteins)

As to your perception of the difference/similarity between humans and (the other) apes, I would say you've got to shake that anthropocentric attitude if you want to talk about biology.

(Unless you really are just having us on. It occurred to me that "Jack Shea" might be an anagramized version of "Jack Ashe", which might be a coy admission of what you're up to here)

  Even this pleasure has apparently been taken, due to the petty and insulting clevernesses of these "Jack Shea" characters, the Wile E. Coyote, "Supergenius" of the issue. Dear "Jack" --- Impress me by showing a gram's worth of honest interest and sincerity, along with your silly quips and dirty swipes.

Steve posing as Creationist Timmy wrote:

Jack: From what I understand, the difference in the complexity of chimpanzee and human cultures (I assume we're ignoring the vast difference between individual contemporary cultures, much less the difference between modern American society and one of the earlier human cultures) is due to sheer need. Culture is a method of non-physical evolution--it's very flexible, allowing people to change behaviors quickly. The Australopithecus lifestyle would have been quite a bit more dangerous than that of a chimpanzee, so "more" culture, however one defines that, would be highly advantageous. Probably necessary for survival. It's those damn cheetahs, you know.

4-6 million years of adaptation across a wide range of climes and increasing brain complexity would easily lead to this... extreme difference that you claim is present, although I'm sure primatologists would dispute that the gap is quite as large as you think.

Jack-

Dembski's essay focuses heavily on cognition, which is "holistic" and poorly understood. Since it's poorly understood one can say almost anything about it without being demonstrably wrong. Science on the other hand focuses on analyzing what can be understood. Like Dembski you dismiss DNA sequence as being a simple property like "height". DNA is essentially a "digital description" of an organism. We can "read" this desciption, and at least partially understand it. We can also see how DNA changes and ask whether the changes are consistent with mutation or with design. Being a scientist is like being an auto mechanic in that you must both know about the parts and be interested in them. Grasping the basics of DNA is crucial to understanding modern biology.

Megan:

Yes but the capacity to adapt in that way to meet survival needs is a major physiological leap as well as a mental one. The European Cup is not played by chimpanzees. Physically as well as mentally human beings are the most complex and varied animals in terms of their motion. The mind and body work together to produce "Swan Lake". This is a singularly physical difference between ourselves and chimpanzees, the complexity of our movements. It represents a greater leap than can be found between any other two compared species. We are unique in the animal kingdom in language, complex ritualized behaviors, range of physical movement...the list goes on and on. There is something we possess as humans which no other member of the animal kingdom possesses. Conscious thought, science, art. Yes we are animals, but we are animals like no other. What explains this difference? It is possible to attribute it to animal evolution. It is also possible to attribute it to an Intelligence manifesting itself in the world of the material.

It's not a leap, Jack, it's a series of steps. If you're going to shift from culture to movement, the transition is well documented in the fossil record. Areas of the brain enlarge, hands become more dextrous, bipedalism develops. Linguistic capacity develops in response to what was probably a need for rapid, efficient communication. Culture gradually develops the entire time--we're talking four million freaking years overall, a few hundred thousand for more modern variants. That is a long time to develop culture, and for the brain itself to become more complex. It's not just possible to attribute this vaunted "difference" you keep harping on to evolution, it is necessary. There is absolutely no evidence for "an Intelligence manifesting itself in the world of the material." None. There is, however, a great mountain of evidence showing evolution could leads to such physical and behavioral changes. You incredulity is neither sound evidence nor sound argument; it merely shows that you don't know much about the subject. Which is fine, most people don't, but if you're going to argue for an intelligent designer then this is a poor way to do it.

Are we just arguing with a broken record here? Someone needs to pick up the needle and move past the "it's too complex to understand, therefore God/aliens did it" argument from incredulity. Over and over again, it's the same scoop of ice cream, just a different flavor. I'm not much of a scientist, and yet the theory of evolution is so easy to grasp whereas the "if not x, then y" theory of ID seems more and more laughable with each successive minute I spend researching it. Maybe if my parents had been more religious and less interested in me getting a quality education, I would have turned out differently.

Shea finds the difference between chimps and man "a greater leap than can be found between any other two compared species." The difference he emphasizes is the possession of "conscious thought, science, art..." Well, these things are important to me also, but I'm aware that my preference is a value judgment.

As good ol' Xenophanes of Colophon used to say: "If cattle and horses or lions had hands, or were able to draw with their hands and do the works that men can do, horses would draw the forms of gods like horses, and cattle like cattle, and they would make their bodies such as they each had themselves." Or, to bring the quote up-to-date, if an anteater were a devotee of intelligent design, he'd point out that the development of a long and sticky tongue was a greater leap than can be found between any other two compared species, greater, certainly, than the insignificant acquisition of loquacity by some ape or other.

A biological judgment of the magnitude of the difference between two species presumably be based on something a little more objective than human cultural preferences, genomic similarity, for example.

Shea finds the difference between chimps and man "a greater leap than can be found between any other two compared species." The difference he emphasizes is the possession of "conscious thought, science, art..." Well, these things are important to me also, but I'm aware that my preference is a value judgment.

As good ol' Xenophanes of Colophon used to say: "If cattle and horses or lions had hands, or were able to draw with their hands and do the works that men can do, horses would draw the forms of gods like horses, and cattle like cattle, and they would make their bodies such as they each had themselves." Or, to bring the quote up-to-date, if an anteater were a devotee of intelligent design, he'd point out that the development of a long and sticky tongue was a greater leap than can be found between any other two compared species, greater, certainly, than the insignificant acquisition of loquacity by some ape or other.

A biological judgment of the magnitude of the difference between two species presumably be based on something a little more objective than human cultural preferences, genomic similarity, for example.

Jay W says:

"Are we just arguing with a broken record here? Someone needs to pick up the needle and move past the "it's too complex to understand, therefore God/aliens did it" argument from incredulity."

As I attempt to show in my comment above, when one actually describes the alternative "hows" in detail they elicit even more incrdulity than the "hows" that are supported by science. That's why creationists, and especially IDers, say as little as possible about their alternative, and always try to shift the focus on what is uncertain, or not yet known, about evolution. Of course, to do that they need to define terms to suit their argument, quote out of context, and dodge questions.

It's not a leap, Jack, it's a series of steps. If you're going to shift from culture to movement, the transition is well documented in the fossil record. Areas of the brain enlarge, hands become more dextrous, bipedalism develops. Linguistic capacity develops in response to what was probably a need for rapid, efficient communication.

Evolutionist: "Pray tell Steve, why don't you argue with creationists?"
Steve: "Take a gander at this here post #4249 what is on TPT right in fronta my eyes."
Evolutionist: "I see."
Steve: "Indeed."
Evolutionist: "Praise Darwin."
Steve: "Darwin be praised."

Sayonara?

Jack, can you stick around long enough to answer my question in Comments 4207 and 4218?

Jack,

If you're still around, what's your best shot? Do you have a coherent answer that can be tested? Do you have anything to offer that doesn't involve supernatural intelligence? What do you propose? Naysaying is not an alternative theory. ID is not an alternative theory until it actually proposes a testable theory. Don't run away. Give us something to work with beyond negatives.

Bob,

I gave him two. All he needs to do is pick the one that is closer to what he has in mind.

Frank,

I should have scrolled back.

There's a pattern here.

Creationist offers a "scientific" defense of creationism. [Aside: unlike Phil Johnson, who embraces the term, Dembski and Jack Shea protest that they are not creationists. I say seriously doubting the common descent of humans and chimps is pretty much the definition of a creationist].

Creationist cheerleader leaps into the lion's den of "Darwinists" (ooh... lions and pandas: a potentially tragic mixing of metaphors) with smug chortling about how objective assessment of data shows that "Darwinism" is a fairy tale.

Challenged with specifics and quantitation, creationist cheerleader retreats into distinctly non-scientific unquantifiable platitudes about the sublime-ness of Beethoven and Shakespeare, intelligence inherent in matter and such (while seeming to take umbrage at being dubbed Prince of Vagueness).

"Darwinists" rip cheerleader's faulty facts and reasoning six ways to Sunday.

Creationist cheerleader, confident his masterly critique of science hasn't been touched, disdainful of small minds too obsessed with facts and figures to see the cosmic truth of the big picture, withdraws to commune with said cosmic truth.

Like Candide, having gotten into trouble with the tutelage of Pangloss (who, were he nonfictional and alive today, would surely be a fellow of the Discovery Institute) cheerleader decides in the end it's best to cultivate one's garden.

Russell,

I try to use the word "creationist" sparingly, because there are so many definitions. Johnson would call me a creationist - and a "Darwinist" of course, depending on which point he was trying to make.

I prefer "anti-evolutionist" as a blanket term for those who misrepresent evolution, from YEC, to OEC, to OEC-plus-common descent (Behe's position), but excluding theistic evolutionists (TEs), who are among the chief critics of the ID strategy. TEs have all the standard objections to anti-evolution strategies plus the complaint that those strategies caricaturize the Creator/designer as something that we can outsmart.

My latest kick is that we make anti-evolutionists look good, and ourselves look bad to the public when we frame the debate along religious lines, rather than science vs. pseudoscience.

Frank - your point is well-taken. I used the term here is that the reason that Dembski finds the term so galling. I think that's because he wants us to believe that his evo-skepticism springs from an objective analysis of the evidence, and not from an idealogical precommitment.

I can't say exactly what Jack's precommitment might be, but clearly he's going to cling to his evo-skepticism despite (dare I say it?) the overwhelming evidence. He has been very adamant that he, unlike us myopic science types, is uniquely able to see the evidence without religious filters. I guess here I'm just trying to rub his nose in the mess that he made.

So, for other contexts, I'm in the market for a substitute for "creationist". I have reservations about "anti-evolutionist", because it sort of implies a contrast with "pro-evolutionists". (I, for one, am no more pro-evolution than I am pro-gravity.) I sometimes use "evo-skeptic", but I don't want to confuse willful blindness with "healthy" skepticism.

Russell,

Unfortunately it's not easy for a word to catch on. I have several that I try to use often at talk.origins, but with few or no takers. Who wouldn't love to coin the next "Carbs."

Not that it will catch on, but "evo-increduluos" comes to mind to avoid the real meaning of "skeptic," which is virtually unknown to the public.

The only thing I find that helps is to be clear about to which "kind" (sorry) of creationist one refers, as well as whether a professional evolution misreprenter or just a clueless follower.

In my opinion, Creationist is the best term. Everyone knows what it means. It exposes the religious underpinnings they try to escape by renaming themselves ID Theorists. And it's been beaten back by the courts.

The trouble with calling creationists and their allies "evo-skeptic" or "evo-incredulous" is that the problem for these folks is not that they doubt evolution but that they have a heck of a time doubting it. Their skepticism is the reverse of traditional skepticism. It is not a search for objective knowledge, but an attempt to avoid recognizing facts which, from their point of view, are all too objective.

Indeed, Jim. And that's part of my philosophy of not arguing with them. I think the only way for creationists to change is to realize that they aren't trying to do science. They aren't really interested in science. They're interested in justifying their religious beliefs. And that's a fundamentally wrong thing to do, and it leads to fooling yourself, and wasting a whole lot of time doing so, both yours and others'.

ID advocates(e.g. Dembski) rather vigorously object to being called creationists. For example, Dembski bitterly complianed that Pennock has included his (Dembski's) essay in his (Pennock's) anthology without his (Dembski's) consent and asserted that he (Dembski) would never give his consent because of the anthology's title ("Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics"). These complaints, though, sound hardly credible if he recall that another anthology, edited by Dembski and comprising a host of articles by ID advocates, including Dembski himself, was titled "Mere Creation." Isn't anybody who believes in Creation, a creationist? Mere or not mere, is just a detail.

Dr. Perakh,

You speak the truth. Dembski is a creationist. And shouldn't really deny it. He should be okay with the title. However, I suppose that he would if "creationist" wasn't such a rhetorically laced word. You anti-creationists have done a heck of a job conjurring up a slew of negative conotations associated with that word. I also understand dembski's disdain towards the title IDC. The IDers should be allowed to name their own movement.

T. Russ: ... if "creationist" wasn't such a rhetorically laced word

The only aspect of the word that is relevant is the one he doesn't want to be tarred with: someone who is determined to fit the round peg of science into the square hole of his ideological preconceptions. It's also the one that's spot on.

Now that you've brought up the subject of "rhetorically laced", may I suggest that as long as Dembski insists on talking about "Darwinists" and "Darwinism", he can't complain about our reluctance to euphemize him.

Perhaps, by symmetry, his camp can be called "Paleyists" (Paley-ontologists?)

Mark, when people catch on to a scam, the scammers change their name and try to keep scamming. What was called Clairvoyance 100 years ago, was called ESP 50 years ago, is called Remote Viewing now, and will be called something else later. The Supreme Court caught on to Creationism 20 years ago, so it's no surprise they're calling themselves Intelligent Design Theorists, and pretend to be wholly different. When that runs out of gas in 10 years, they'll call themselves Immaterial Naturalists, or some such.

The names change, but deep down, it's 10,000-year-old superstition vs 400-year old rationalism.

T. Russ,

You said, "The IDers should be allowed to name their own movement."

Even if they name it science?

The statement:

"In this rather peculiar essay, he makes it quite clear that "Design theorists" reject the idea that humans evolved from a common ancestor with apes."

is simply false and is contradicted by Dembski's article, that Ian himself quoted:

"Design theorists have yet to reach a consensus on these matters [whether humans are redesigned apes or built from scratch]."

Bob: Well, they should be allowed to argue about whether it is science. In a broad sense ID has been science at least since the very dawn of science itself. Personally, I count the dawning of science as beginning with those crazy greeks Plato, Aristotle, and so on, who were mostly all design theorists. Also, did not William Whewell himself, the philosopher who invented the word "scientist," argue that in the life sciences it was impossible to acheive a correct understanding without reference to design? I could draw out a long historical arguement which would lead us up to today and explain why it is that many scientists believe erroneously that the concept of design cannot function within science, however that would be hyjacking this blog. But to answer your question... Yes they can, and rightly so.

T. Russ,

What does Divine Creation have to do with Science?

You seriously want to know? I can give you some information or some argument but... if you really want all the goods check out Osiris (A Research Journal Devoted to the History of Science and its Cultural Influences)Volume 16 "Science in Theistic Contexts. Cognitive Dimensions" This volume is a collection of essays adressing the conceptual developments of various fields in science in which religious thought, namely the idea of Divine creation, played formative roles in inspiring research, concept formation, etc. Boyle's theory of matter, Newton's postulation of Gravity, Kepler's discovery of elliptical orbits, etc... all great Stuff. The best articles concern the formation of Darwin's theory. So, Divine Creation at least has very much to do with the formation of modern science.

As for what it has to do with todays science. I guess that depends on the answer to the main question we're all so rowled up about. If the world is the result of the design or plan of some divine intelligence then it has everything to do with science. However, if the world, it's laws etc. are here as a result of no divine act, then it matters still. Then Divine Creation is something we ought to ponder, a belief or inference, which has curiously evolved in the minds of us naked apes. Either way, don't dismiss the idea because you want to, or because its fashionable. It's a bit more complex than that.

T. Russ,

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, or perhaps you misunderstood.
We all know how early Science was an exercise in trying to expand the knowledge and celebration of the Glories of His Handiwork (Divine Creation). That it didn't quite work out that way is certainly not for want of trying. That was not my point, though.
My question and response had to do with what I see as ID's attempt to pass off what I consider Divine Creation as a valid Scientific theory. As far as Osiris goes, provide a link and I'll take a look.

To rephrase my question -- What place does Divine Creation have in Science; what does it have to offer for plausible explanation; and what avenues for testing does it provide?

And now to your last paragraph:
You said, "If the world is the result of the design or plan of some divine intelligence then it has everything to do with science."
It is incumbent upon you to prove that the world is the result of design, since there is at present not an iota of evidence for that, and until you do, this line is simply a red herring.

And then you say, " However, if the world, it's laws etc. are here as a result of no divine act, then it matters still. Then Divine Creation is something we ought to ponder, a belief or inference, which has curiously evolved in the minds of us naked apes."
Why exactly do you think we should waste our time pondering why a notion that -- by your rhetorical acceptance here - has absolutely no basis in reality/fact/knowledge, has some degree of currency amongst the general population of naked apes? Here's a simple answer - we all need something to get us through the night. Do you have a better answer?

I guess that depends on the answer to the main question we're all so rowled up about.

T. Russ,

We're waiting.

Keep waiting. I have a paper due at the end of this week. I will then return to the good ol' fun at PandassThumb.

Intentional typo, T Russ?

Actually, it wasn't intentional. Sorry Bout that.

No problem - I thought it was funny as hell!

While I agree that there are mistakes in Dembski's paper, it is sort of misleading to emphasize that fact that we share 99.2% of our genetic material with chimps.  We share 33% with daffodils, but no one  ever uses that in argumentation. 

— On June 22, 2004 01:05 PM Erin

I am not saying that I deny that we share 99.2% of our genetic material with chimps, I am just saying that the statement lacks perspective and it isn't really the most convincing.

Considering only point mutations s = e^(-g*m) where: s == similarity == fraction of genome shared between a fly and its ancestor g generations ago m == probability of mutation at each base pair per generation (assume 10^-8) Ignoring the effect of natural selection, calculate the genetic similarity between a modern fly and its ancestor 5,000,000 years ago, assuming a generation time of 10 days

It's interesting, though, to apply the same exercise to humans and chimps. Assume a generation time of 15 years.

— Russel

Russell,

I plugged in the numbers. Neat! Gives a better appreciation of deep time. Of course, just like with equations like PV=nRT, misrepresenters will focus only on the approximations rather than the fact that the equations work reasonably well, and that no one has proposed workable alternatives.

Wasn't that question posed specifically to Jack Shea? If so, that makes at least 2 questions that remain unanswered.

BTW, has the "search" function been greatly limited in the redesigned site, or am I just missing something?

Wasn't that question posed specifically to Jack Shea? If so, that makes at least 2 questions that remain unanswered.

I get 96% similarity.

— on July 2, 2004 05:34 PM Ian Musgrave

A more accurate approximation uses a spontaneous mutation rate of 2 x 10^-9/year.

As ballpark figures go, though, I think these are pretty good.

I've never quite figured out why the rate should be similar per year, rather than per generation.

Russell says:

"I've never quite figured out why the rate should be similar per year, rather than per generation."

Adding a chemist's POV to DT's comments, I would expect that, since mutations are chemical reactions, their rates would be based on common units of time, unless of course, they occurred primarily at reproduction, which is apparently not the case.

Frank J:
"Adding a chemist's POV to DT's comments, I would expect that, since mutations are chemical reactions, their rates would be based on common units of time, unless of course, they occurred primarily at reproduction, which is apparently not the case."

(Actually, Russell is a chemist's mind trapped in a biologist's body.)

I did rather assume that the mutations occurred primarily at reproduction, but I guess not. These are, of course, all fine points relative to the back-of-the-envelope calculations I was hoping to interest our creationist friends in.

I think the truth of the matter, as it so often tends to be, is a little more complicated, which is probably one reason that molecular clock arguments are not quite as "slam-dunk" as we would like. If, for instance, during the lifetime of an individual, gametes were descended from gametes descended from gametes... the mutations would be cumulative. If, on the other hand, gametes were continually read off of a "master copy" - a relatively slowly replicating stem cell - all gametes would be similarly divergent from the parent regardless of the age of the parent.

I did rather assume that the mutations occurred primarily at reproduction, but I guess not.

— Russell

These are, of course, all fine points relative to the back-of-the-envelope calculations I was hoping to interest our creationist friends in.

How did you get that? I used 5 million years at 15 years per generation = 333,333 generations, and get S = 99.667 %. The equation quoted above actually gives the change from the original sequence in only one lineage. So, for the similarity between two species, the equation should be modified to s = e^(-2*g*m). Which then gives 99.34%.

— Douglas Theobald

I think the truth of the matter, as it so often tends to be, is a little more complicated, which is probably one reason that molecular clock arguments are not quite as "slam-dunk" as we would like.

— Russell