The Ever-Imminent Collapse of Evolution

At what point did ID become - or was it always - the quintessential example of the blind leading the blind? And in this case, was it the self-blinded leading the willfully blind? To give them their due though, it did show some brilliant word-smithing abilities - they've managed to keep an empty balloon afloat in the public eye for quite a while.

Evolutionary biology is a dynamic field of research, with theoretical and empirical work going on in hundreds of institutions around the world. The scientific literature shows no tapering-off of reports of research into evolutionary phenomena.

I've just updated my ID literature search. Not surprisingly, there's still little about ID in the science literature and it's mostly negative. For a detailed list of ID references (with links).

I've just updated my ID literature search. Not surprisingly, there's still little about ID in the science literature and it's mostly negative. For a detailed list of ID references (with links).

Let's try again - I keep hitting the post button instead of preview. I've just updated my ID literature search. Not surprisingly, there's still little about ID in the science literature and it's mostly negative. For a detailed list of ID references (with links).

And all of these reports support the notion that random processes and accidental mutations are incapable of generating complex, highly organized structures, processes and adaptations in which multiple processes and multiple structures support multiple functions and are integrated into the system in such a way that the structures and processes not only support their own functions, they also support the functions of other structures and processes and the overall function of the system. Can you cite any particular reference from the literature that supports the notion that random processes have such power? After all, that is the crux of the matter. Dembski is arguing (and so am I) that intelligent input is required for evolution to proceed. You, apparently are arguing that it is not required, that it can be explained by random, accidental processes. Is there anything in the literature that is supportive of your position?

— charlie wagner

Charlie's conclusions are reasonable if one uses only propositional logic and considers only the macroscopic. Unfortunately, the microsopic level (DNA sequence) suggests entirely random processes. It seems to require more than average intelligence and insight to get beyond propositional logic and to see randomness.

I probably haven't read all of the literature that has flowed from Charlie's prolific keyboard, so forgive me if this is well established background.

Given the rather numinous nebulosity and nebulous numinosity of Intelligent Design Design Theory, without nailing down some basics, one never knows exactly what one is arguing with.

I am pretty sure, for instance, that I am genetically descended from my parents, then grandparents, etc. and confidently extrapolate this process back into prehistory. Further, I find compelling the evidence that humans share a relatively recent ancestor with chimps, an older (but still recent relative to geological time) ancestor with the other primates, etc., and confidently extrapolate this process back to at least Cambrian times. Further, I can think of no compelling reason to look further than the basic explanation of "descent with modification" (as that process is understood by modern molecular genetics) to at least broadly understand these phenomena.

Does Charlie take issue with any of this so far?

I would love to know exactly what happened in preCambrian times, but details do get harder to come by looking back beyond that. We have to rely more on molecular evidence and less on durable specimens, but that's pretty much what one would expect, if one thinks that more complex forms evolved from less complex ones. Further, the molecular evidence is still startlingly compatible with the same processes of descent with modification stretching back way beyond the most ancient fossils.

Does Charlie take issue with any of this so far?

To really know the details of the origin of life would be the intellectual equivalent of, I don't know, landing a human on Alpha Centauri. I'm pretty sure it's not going to happen in my lifetime. Nonetheless, I don't see any reason why, in principle, we need to look further than the kinds of processes we've described, if we accept the hypothesis that the ultimate ancestral genome was a molecule capable of self-replication. (How that came to be, is of course another question. But I see no reason to require of it any more "complexity"/"information" than is necessary just for self-replication).

I think I've just sketched a view that is generally shared by most scientists. I'm pretty sure that somewhere along the line, Charlie would disagree. I think it might be helpful, if exchanges with a Paleyist are to be anything more than duels in the dark, to know exactly where he agrees and where he doesn't. But really, as Wes pointed out, there are no published reports showing the inadequacy of evolutionary processes. So it seems to me the onus is on the Paleyist to demonstrate his claim that "intelligent input" is either necessary or likely. So far as I know, Behe and Dembski are the only two who purport to do so, and their claims do not bear scrutiny.

Can you cite any particular reference from the literature that supports the notion that random processes have such power? After all, that is the crux of the matter. Dembski is arguing (and so am I) that intelligent input is required for evolution to proceed. You, apparently are arguing that it is not required, that it can be explained by random, accidental processes. Is there anything in the literature that is supportive of your position?

—

Les Lane wrote: Charlie's conclusions are reasonable if one uses only propositional logic and considers only the macroscopic. Unfortunately, the microsopic level (DNA sequence) suggests entirely random processes. It seems to require more than average intelligence and insight to get beyond propositional logic and to see randomness.

The thing about propositional logic is that it does not necessarily have anything to do with an actual physical system. Even if DNA sequences occur via a random process in a population, they occur in an ecosystem which exerts selective pressures. Selective pressures are a non-ramdom thing.

I suspect Charlie Wagner is merely ignorant of how biology works.

Unfortunately, the microsopic level (DNA sequence) suggests entirely random processes.

I am sorry to say that the problem with debating ID creationists is that they have really nothing of value for a working biologist; ID theology is a scientific dead-end.

Their position is based on two unambiguous beliefs. First, that biological systems are too complex to arise by physical processes, chance and selection (an idea which they accept blindly and do not attempt to demonstrate through their own direct experiments). I am reminded of many previous assumptions, e.g., that organic molecules could not be synthesized outside a living cell, that were subsequently proven false (Wohler's synthesis of urea and the Miller-Urey experiment). Second, that an intelligent designer exists and manipulates the physical world (for which they offer no independent scientific evidence and propose no mechanism by which such interventions might occur, or could be detected). Since evolution demonstrably occurs (all the time), it should be possible to measure these periodic interventions, or find clear evidence for them.

I think what draws many, and certainly myself, to science is that it rarely wastes time in futile debate; in fact debate is a sign of uncertainty - the answer emerges not from discussion but through experiments and analysis. Once a question is resolved, we move on to the next question. While some questions, previously thought answered, have to be reconsidered in the light of new data, the end result is a progressive expansion of understanding.

Evolution theory is, in its board strokes, one such resolved question, and it leads to many fruitful new questions and ideas - the sign that a scientific process is taking place. ID is, as are all theological ideas, a dead-end -- the only reason that people propose it is that either, their religious beliefs demand it, they do not understand biology, or they have lost their faith in the explanatory power of the scientific process.

Pardon my insufficient concreteness. I'm referring here to DNA sequence "change" (mutation). DNA sequence "change" is what one observes in comparing DNA sequences (among related organisms). Familiarity with DNA replication, recombination, mutation and "neutral evolution" are called for here.

The real issue is that, as creationists, Charlie and his ilk insist that a single random event create all molecular structures as they are now - substituting a single "random" event for their single "creation" event. It presupposes a recent creation.

Molecular evolution (spoken as a mere dilletante) is a series of "random" events, biased by selective "pressures". The "randomness" is the undirected mutations; evolution is the "selection" from those undirected mutations by survival of whichever mutation "happens" to convey a survival and/or reproductive advantage.

Perhaps a poker analogy? Those players left at the table at the end of the night are those who could take advantage of the random deal of the cards. The deal is random; the play is not.

Charlie simply wants an easy choice, not a thought process; he wants his diety or the "random" diety, not a complex & messy process without a prescribed end.

The real issue is that, as creationists, Charlie and his ilk insist that a single random event create all molecular structures as they are now - substituting a single "random" event for their single "creation" event. It presupposes a recent creation.

Molecular evolution (spoken as a mere dilletante) is a series of "random" events, biased by selective "pressures". The "randomness" is the undirected mutations; evolution is the "selection" from those undirected mutations by survival of whichever mutation "happens" to convey a survival and/or reproductive advantage.

Perhaps a poker analogy? Those players left at the table at the end of the night are those who could take advantage of the random deal of the cards. The deal is random; the play is not.

Charlie simply wants an easy choice, not a thought process; he wants his diety or the "random" diety, not a complex & messy process without a prescribed end.

Since the subject of "research program" has been broached here, I'd be curious to get some perspective on the requirements for a "research program" from list participants.

Most, if not all, participants may recognize the term as Lakatos' which contrasts slightly with Kuhn's paradigm.

Research programs are complex-embodying accepted theories and even metaphysical assumptions. As such, they are not directly testable and never really "refuted".

The sign of advancing research program is its ability to generate valid, testable hypotheses and explain existing known "facts" as well as account for new ones.

Lakatos argues that this research takes place in the protective belt. Hypotheses generated in the protective belt are "testable".

My view is that in order to have testability, you must have falsifiability.

On the whole, it seems to me that ID **could** generate testable propositions, but thus far, it has done so to an extremely limited extent, and most of these propositions can be shown to be extremely weak, if not explicitly "falsified" at least at the theoretical level.

As an example, the argument that flagellum cannot evolve can be easily refuted-and has been refuted and thus I will not repeat the argument here. I suspect most list participants are familiar with the argumen and could do a better job than i can in stating it.

What do others think? Is there a possibility of an ID "research program"? What would it have to do?

Finally, what do others think-is falsifiability of propositions in the protective belt essential, possible or even desirable?

Ian to Charlie: I'm sure you'll just dismiss that as microevolution...

I don't know. Creationists used to dismiss that kind of evidence as just "microevolution". But aren't Dembski and Behe now making the claim that Darwinian processes can't create effective proteins? That would seem to rule out the possiblity of bacterial resistance occuring naturally. So now even the things they call "microevolution" seem to provide evidence against ID claims.

It seems to me that the only way the creationists can make these arguments hold together is either to make an artifical distinction between "creating a new protein" (which can't happen in their view) and "tweaking an old protein for improved function", or they will have to claim that everytime a bacteria/insect etc. gains a resistance gene the designer is at work behind it.

This doesn't seem to be the first time Dembski has made a "just wait five years"-type statement. In 1998, he claimed that intelligent design would be worthy of funding from the National Science Foundation within five years:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar02.html#hon2

I think we are now in a fairly definitive position to evaluate the accuracy of that prediction. It seems that the "imminent collapse of Darwinism" is a mirage, always retreating further and further over the horizon as the poor beleaguered IDers pursue it...

On the contrary, it suggests intelligent input. The sequence of DNA bases is not random, anymore than the bits in a computer program are random. They code for specific proteins that are used in specific structures and processes and they have specific functions. If the DNA sequences in the genome were random, no living organisms would ever emerge

— Charlie

Mr. Wagner wrote:

"If the DNA sequences in the genome were random, no living organisms would ever emerge."

Why not? What would prevent them (living organisms) from emerging over time?

A question. Would Dembski retract his statement if he understood mechanisms of DNA sequence change? Both Dembski and Charlie like DNA sequence statics, but seem oblivious to dynamics.

It's astounding, given ID's solid roots in religious fundamentalism, that Dembski has the cajones to bring up the Taliban.

(Adapted from my posting on ARN)

There are a number of eminent something-or-other-biologists in the table of contents of the special issue of Touchstone:

Phillip Johnson, Professor Emeritus of Biologico-Legal Studies
Edward Sisson, Assistant Professor of Biologico-Legal Studies
Richard Weikart, Associate Professor of Modern-European-Historico-Biology
Jonathan Witt, Assistant Professor of Fellow-of-DI-Biology
Graeme Hunter, Professor of Philosophico-Biology
Jay Richards, Vice President for Politico-Biology
Carson Holloway, Assistant Professor of Politico-Biology
David Mills, Editor of The Journal of Religico-Biology
Anthony Esolen, Professor of Poetico-Biology and author of Did Dante Write Darwin's OoS, or Was It Really Marlowe?
Paul Nelson, Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophico-Ontogenetic-Depth-Biology; someday-to-be-author of the forthcoming-in-perpetuity On Common Descent

and, of course, the irrepressible

William A. Dembski, Research Associate Professor of Mathematico-Philosophico-Theologico-Biology and co-owner, Brazos Barbecue.

A representative selection of distinguished hyphenates, every one of them educated to the gills (or should that be branchial arches?) in something that is not biology.

RBH

With due deference and apologies to the University of Ediacara.

RBH,

I find it funny how Krauze cherry-picks evolution supporters, whereas you looked at everyone in that issue.

And all of these reports support the notion that random processes and accidental mutations are incapable of generating complex, highly organized structures, processes and adaptations in which multiple processes and multiple structures support multiple functions and are integrated into the system in such a way that the structures and processes not only support their own functions, they also support the functions of other structures and processes and the overall function of the system.

Many of the known microRNAs are encoded in polycistronic transcripts. Here, we reconstruct the evolutionary history of the mir17 microRNA clusters which consist of miR-17, miR-18, miR-19a, miR-19b, miR-20, miR-25, miR-92, miR-93, miR-106a, and miR-106b. The history of this cluster is governed by an initial phase of local (tandem) duplications, a series of duplications of entire clusters and subsequent loss of individual microRNAs from the resulting paralogous clusters. The complex history of the mir17 microRNA family appears to be closely linked to the early evolution of the vertebrate lineage.

Jason: "I would suggest that in the future, you drop the "all" from your assertion."

Indeed. Which of the following would be a better choice?

(1)...... most
(2)...... some
(3)...... none

This doesn't seem to be the first time Dembski has made a "just wait five years"-type statement. In 1998, he claimed that intelligent design would be worthy of funding from the National Science Foundation within five years

"All" of them? Really? Charlie, have you personally read every single journal article that deals with molecular evolution?

If so, how did you miss this?

So while this is a very interesting report, it sheds no light on our problem.

a page that includes a summary of Luria and Delbruck's 1943 paper that demonstrated that mutations which bestow resistance upon bacteria are random rather than arising in response to the anti-bacterial agent.

Do you have any evidence for the intervention of an intelligent agent?

Charlie: Can you cite any particular reference from the literature that supports the notion that random processes have such power?

Me: Can you cite any particular reference from the literature that supports the notion that they don't?

Anyone who refers to the algorithm of evolution as 'random processes and accidental mutations' is just not worth arguing with.

Well, I’m sure Dembski would agree that ID is worthy of NSF funding now. Nothing should be inferred from the inconvenient fact that ID is not currently funded by the NSF.

I posted a paper here a while back that demonstrated that much of this kind of resistance is the result of acquired elements such as plasmids and is not the result of random mutation.

Understanding the dynamics of DNA change is a key to understanding evolution. Understanding only DNA structure can mislead. If we didn't understand how rocks were formed, then intelligent design would be the obvious explanation for their existence. One has only to look at the early history of geology to confirm this.

Charlie, when you say "this kind of resistance" which of the following do you mean: 1) Most gains of resistance in nature are due to sharing of acquired elements and not to mutation. 2) Most gains of resistance in bacterial "mutagenisis" protocols such as the one in the Luria and Delbruck paper are due only to sharing of acquired elements and not to mutation. Because if it's #1, then that would be totally irrelevant to the discussion, and if it's #2, I'd really really like to see that reference if you don't mind providing it again.

In that case, we could ask the advocates of ID inconvenient questions, like what theoretical advances have been made in ID since that statement was first made.

Are you aware of anything in the literature that supports the position that the evolution of highly organized processes, structures and adaptations can occur through random, accidental occurences?

I am not disputing that changes occur in processes, systems and structures over time, I am only questioning the mechanism of these changes. Nothing in this report even suggests that the evolutionary changes observed by the investigators are random or accidental. (Nor do they claim that they are intelligently guided).

Indeed. Which of the following would be a better choice? (1) . . . . . . most (2) . . . . . . some (3) . . . . . . none

As a microbiologist, I'm totally at a loss to understand why Charlie thinks mobile elements bolster his case.

It would be helpful if he would answer the questions I posed earlier.

There are more things in cells and the earth, than are dreamt of in Charlie's philosophy.

Dembski: In the next five years, molecular Darwinism --- the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level --- will be dead