The New Yorker: Devolution by H. Allan Orr

I enjoyed this article. Except for this line:

"A random mutation in an organism, like a random change in any finely tuned machine, is almost always bad."

Random mutatations are usually neutral, yes?

Correct. Most mutations are neutral. In fact, neutrality seems to be a major contributor to evolvability and actually may be under selective pressure. Imagine that, neutrality can be selected for.

The newest dance craze..."The Behe Backstep".

The newest dance craze..."The Behe Backstep".

oops. sorry for the double post...swore to myself I wouldn't do that.

Also, when Dembski is wielding his equations, he gets to play the part of the hard scientist busily correcting the errors of those soft-headed biologists. (Evolutionary biology actually features an extraordinarily sophisticated body of mathematical theory, a fact not widely known because neither of evolution's great popularizers---Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen Jay Gould---did much math.)

Biologists aren't alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism;

they're alarmed because intelligent design is junk science.

Evolutionary biology actually features an extraordinarily sophisticated body of mathematical theory

Biologists aren't alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism;

— H. Allen Orr

Biologists... have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism;

— H. Allen Orr

It's a good article, but here are a few things that bugged me...

1. Orr unfortunately falls for the old trick that the IDists accept an old Earth and some form of evolution. This is not the case. As I've pointed out here many times, the ID movement takes no position on these issues. This crucial distinction is necessary for understanding the unscientific nature of the ID movement.

2. The biggest problem with Dembski's "specified compexity" is that under no circumstance has he presented evidence, matematical or otherwise, that it cannot evolve naturally. To make matters worse, Dembski defines SC ambigiously. He uses not only the definition that Orr does, but also defines it as something which has less than a 1 in 10^150 chance of occuring by any natural means. By using both definitions, Dembski engages in circular reasoning. Orr does a good job of pointing out some of the problems with SC, but at its core, the argument is entirely question begging and requires no special refutation.

3. Orr gives the IDists a complete pass on their relationship to the old-school creationists. Even Behe and Dembski's arguments are not really new, but can be found in various forms among earlier creationists.

Recommendations as to the best first book for a mathematician to read about the extraordinarily sophisticated mathematics of evolutionary biology?

Orr might have also mentioned that CSI has never been subjected to a test, and that repeated demands of the form "here's an item. Does it have CSI?" have been ignored. It should be safe to say that CSI cannot be calculated for any item unless the answer is known in advance.

Dembski's arguments have been met with tremendous enthusiasm in the I.D. movement. In part, that's because an innumerate public is easily impressed by a bit of mathematics. Also, when Dembski is wielding his equations, he gets to play the part of the hard scientist busily correcting the errors of those soft-headed biologists.

I finally realized why I've been so uncomfortable with Dembski's use of the "no free lunch" stuff: Intelligent design assumes there IS a free lunch, provided by some other intelligent entity.

Or do I completely misunderstand the the claim of NFL?

And, Andrea -- can we get some of those "good mathematical evolutionary biology grad" students to follow Dembski around like a good Truth Squad, to give Dembski a run for his money? The more the merrier.

I'm going to make every effort to be at Dembski's Seattle lecture tonight, but I'm neither a working biologist nor a good mathematical evo-bio grad student, merely a humble defense attorney. No anxiety throwing some of the Lenny Flank-type questions his way, if I get any reasonable chance, just for fun, but if any of you have more specific suggestions for great one-liners, I'd love to see them.

Remember, given the usual tactics and the likely partisan nature of the audience, I don't anticipate getting more than one good shot, at most, so please feed me that one killer question or comment you've always wanted to toss old Bill's way...!

The biggest problem with Dembski's "specified compexity" is that under no circumstance has he presented evidence, matematical or otherwise, that it cannot evolve naturally.

— Steve Reuland

I'm going to make every effort to be at Dembski's Seattle lecture tonight, ... given the usual tactics and the likely partisan nature of the audience, I don't anticipate getting more than one good shot ...

"William Dembski's treatment of the No Free Lunch theorems is written in jello"

— David Wolpert (No Free Lunch Theorems expert)

"We have done amazingly well in creating a cultural movement, but we must not exaggerate ID's successes on the scientific front."

— Dembski

"intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."

— Dembski

"the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution"

According to Darwinism, evolution largely reflects the combined action of random mutation and natural selection.

The biggest problem with Dembski's "specified compexity" is that under no circumstance has he presented evidence, matematical or otherwise, that it cannot evolve naturally.

Diet also played an enormous role in bringing about the existence of, and differences among, many organisms. Diet causes some organisms to live longer. It makes some organisms bigger. Bone length depends in part on diet. That is one reason Latin Americans tend to be shorter. I'm sure dinosaurs got as big as they did partly because they ate so damn much. The length of the neck of the giraffe was affected by diet.

If you eat more, you tend to consist of more cells. Cells divide more frequently if they are well-nourished. That makes you bigger.

But don't eat too much or you are going to be out of shape. Unless you exercise.

Remember, given the usual tactics and the likely partisan nature of the audience, I don't anticipate getting more than one good shot, at most, so please feed me that one killer question or comment you've always wanted to toss old Bill's way . . . !

"And the claim that "X was designed" is a positive claim, though a vague claim"

You can look at it that way as a linguistic statement and be correct, but it is realistically preposterous to do so.

If I claim black is white, am i making a positive claim? sure, liguistically i am, but realistically...

However, if I claim black is white, and give some evidence to back that up (maybe i show that individual variation in visual processing has a lot to do with whether one views a color as black or white), then i would say i am making a positive claim.

besides that...

The primary argument of ID is saying black is not black, it could be white. That is not a positive declaration, even linguistically.

Diet also played an enormous role in bringing about the existence of, and differences among, many organisms.

— Lonhorm

The biggest problem with Dembski's "specified compexity" is that under no circumstance has he presented evidence, matematical or otherwise, that it cannot evolve naturally.

— Steve Reuland

I don't think one has an obligation to "present evidence, matematical or otherwise, that [a thing] cannot evolve naturally."

Concerning the argument that most (by the vast majority)mutations are harmful used by the ID/creationist (they ARE the same), I wonder how they would explain the number of alleles represented in the human population for, lets say, the HLA genes? The HLA-B has, a last count, 108 alleles in the human population. If you take a young earth that creationist propose of less than 10,000 years, and two original parents (Adam and Eve)you will get VERY frequent mutations to create 108 HLA-B alleles in 10K years even if both Adam and Eve were heterozygous for HLA-B and neither shared the same allele for that gene. Note:I consider a new allele a mutation. That is 104 new alleles in 400 generations (using 25yr generation time for humans) or roughly 1 new allele every 4 generations. That is a hell of a lot of mutating! And the only harmful thing about it is trying to get a damn transplant when you need one!

You can look at it that way as a linguistic statement and be correct, but it is realistically preposterous to do so.  If I claim black is white, am i making a positive claim?  sure, liguistically i am, but realistically . . . However, if I claim black is white, and give some evidence to back that up (maybe i show that individual variation in visual processing has a lot to do with whether one views a color as black or white), then i would say i am making a positive claim. besides that . . . The primary argument of ID is saying black is not black, it could be white.  That is not a positive declaration, even linguistically.

At first glance, I read "organisms" as "orgasms" and was going to beg for details, but never mind.

No, "one" doesn't have an obligation, but Dembski does. Isn't that what his "4th law" and entire crusade is founded on?

The question about the neutrality of mutations confuses the introduction of mutations with the fate of mutations:

"I enjoyed this article. Except for this line:

"A random mutation in an organism, like a random change in any finely tuned machine, is almost always bad."

Random mutatations are usually neutral, yes?"

One must be careful about defining where the mutations occur in the genome when asking about their effects. Two thirds of random mutations introduced into the coding region of a gene are likely to be deleterious because of changes to the amino acid sequence of the encoded protein. These mutations although introduced, are rarely fixed in populations either because of stochastic loss or due to purifying selection against the deleterious change. Many of the nucleotide changes in noncoding sequences are likely to be neutral, except for those that occur in cis-acting regulatory sequences. With respect to coding sequences, Orr is correct.

Two thirds of random mutations introduced into the coding region of a gene are likely to be deleterious because of changes to the amino acid sequence of the encoded protein.

Concerning the argument that most (by the vast majority)mutations are harmful used by the ID/creationist (they ARE the same), I wonder how they would explain the number of alleles represented in the human population for, lets say, the HLA genes? The HLA-B has, a last count, 108 alleles in the human population. If you take a young earth that creationist propose of less than 10,000 years, and two original parents (Adam and Eve)you will get VERY frequent mutations to create 108 HLA-B alleles in 10K years even if both Adam and Eve were heterozygous for HLA-B and neither shared the same allele for that gene. Note:I consider a new allele a mutation. That is 104 new alleles in 400 generations (using 25yr generation time for humans) or roughly 1 new allele every 4 generations. That is a hell of a lot of mutating!

G₀ dI/dⁱt

I don't think one has an obligation to "present evidence, matematical or otherwise, that [a thing] cannot evolve naturally."  I'm not sure what that means. 

— Longhorn

And the claim that "X was designed" is a positive claim, though a vague claim.  But it would be nice if the person who offers that claim says which event(s) he or she thinks the designer caused.  And then present any data that she thinks enables her to determine that. 

Two thirds of random mutations introduced into the coding region of a gene are likely to be deleterious because of changes to the amino acid sequence of the encoded protein. 

— SWSchaeffer

Dembski claims that specified complexity is evidence for ID.  He claims that when one sees SC, then one should infer design, because SC objects cannot come about naturally.  (If the meaning of "natural" isn't quite clear, that's Dembski's problem --- he is the one drawing the dichotomy between "natural" and "intelligent" causes, and claiming to find evidence of the latter by way of rejection of the former.)  Therefore, Dembski is obligated to demonstrate that SC objects cannot evolve naturally.  Otherwise, his argument fails.

And it's not anyone else's obligation to demonstrate that any given thing can evolve naturally.

And the data Dembski presents is specified complexity.  (Which of course is not data, but an argument that certain sets of data must be the result of ID.)  For a long time, he claimed that "the math" showed that specified complexity could not evolve.  Skeptics asked to see these calculations that suposedly demonstrated that SC objects could not come about by natural means.  Dembski vacillated and kept promising that they were forthcoming (after claiming that they had already been done).  Finally, in No Free Lunch, he presented the one (1) calculation that he has done to date.  This was on the flagellum of  E. coli, for which he made the grand discovery that a random combination of amino acids is extremely unlikely to result in a functioning flagellum.  Since no one thinks that happened anyway, the calculation was pointless.  No evolutionary scenarios were taken into account.  His excuse for this was that irreducible complexity made the evolution of the flagellum impossible, which if true, would be enough by itself to conclude that it couldn't have evolved naturally.  Thus, Dembski's SC doesn't actually add anything of merit.

SW, thanks for the post. How are you using the word "deleterious?" And what evidence is that there most mutations are "deleterious?" And do you have a reference? Is there an especially good article on the issue? I hear this discussion a lot, and it seems like there is not a clear consensus.

But not all amino acid changes are deleterious. The evidence (and my own personal experience doing mutagenesis) suggests that the majority of amino acid mutations are neutral. This is why homologous proteins can share less than 60% sequence identity, yet have the same structure and function. But mutational tolerance is undoubtedly context-dependent, and probably varies greatly from protein to protein. I would expect that proteins that interact with lots of other molecules, like p53 or calmodulin, would tolerate far fewer mutations than a simple enzyme that gets overexpressed.

What do you mean "naturally?" 

— Longhorn

I don't think he is obligated to demonstrate that "SC objects cannot evolve naturally?" 

It is sometimes hard to show that there is not a causal linkage.  So I think he is obligated to tells us some of the event(s) he believes were caused by the designer(s).  That helps us determine if his claim is reasonable.

It would be so difficult for him to show that "SC objects cannot evolve naturally." 

And it's not anyone else's obligation to demonstrate that any given thing can evolve naturally...

If the ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous changes for a gene is less than one then nonsynonymous substitutions are largely deleterious. 

— SWSchaeffer

I don't think people should even use the word "natural." 

— Longhorn

Senator Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, has argued that "intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes."

— H. Allen Orr

Of course it's difficult.  But that's Dembski's problem.  That is the claim he is making, that is what he has to demonstrate.  No one said he was being reasonable.

In case you haven't noticed, the IDists use this term constantly.  Take it up with them.  I agree that it's problematic, but it's easier to address their arguments if one doesn't first have to invent new terminology.

1. Orr unfortunately falls for the old trick that the IDists accept an old Earth and some form of evolution. This is not the case. As I've pointed out here many times, the ID movement takes no position on these issues. This crucial distinction is necessary for understanding the unscientific nature of the ID movement.

— Steve Reuland

I think it would be fine if Dembski tried to show that "SC objects cannot evolve naturally."  But I don't have a problem if he doesn't. But, after thinking about it, it is not important to me either way. 

— Longhorn

Deleterious means that most mutation within coding sequences are likely to be lethal.  One can infer the lethality of most amino acid changes by comparing the rate of change in nucleotide sites that are in synonymous sites (sites within codons that fail to change the amino acid sequence, usually third positions) versus  nonsynonymous sites (sites within codons that do change amino acid sequence, usually first and second positions).  Synonymous codons should reflect neutral sites and nonsynonymous sites may or may not be subject to selection. If the ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous changes for a gene is less than one then nonsynonymous substitutions are largely deleterious.  Most genes tend to fit this pattern. If the ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous changes for a gene is greater than one then nonsynonymous substitutions are subject to diversifying selection.  Major histocompatibility genes fit this pattern. If the ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous changes for a gene is equal to one then nonsynonymous substitutions are neutral.  Pseudogenes tend to fit this pattern due to the lack of selective constraints. Comparative genome studies where all genes are compared between two species show that the majority of genes have a ratio of synonymous to nonsynonymous changes are less than one. See the open access article by Richards et al. (2005) Genome Research 15:1-18.

Then apaprently, you don't have a problem if he cannot demonstrate what he claims to have demonstrated.  Dembski is not merely saying that things were "designed", he is making a specific argument to that effect.  That argument was critiqued by Orr, but he missed the most important part IMO. I usually tell myself that two detailed explanations are all I'll do before concluding that either I'm not communicating well, or that my audience just isn't listening.  Therefore, I'll stop now.

Remember, given the usual tactics and the likely partisan nature of the audience, I don't anticipate getting more than one good shot, at most, so please feed me that one killer question or comment you've always wanted to toss old Bill's way . . . !

But here is my question.  Let's say John Drake is right on mutation rates.  If most mutations were "fatal" and humans are averaging 1.6 new mutations per sexual generation among coding genes, then wouldn't humans be in trouble?  Maybe humans are the exception rather than the rule.  And most other species are different.  But look at mice.  According to Drake, mice are averaging about 1 new mutations per sexual generation among coding genes.  Wouldn't it put mice in jeopardy if most mutations to coding genes were fatal.

In his book The Ancestor's Tale, Richard Dawkins deals with this issue.  He definitely seems to think that most mutations to non-coding DNA are "neutral."  As for coding DNA, his position is harder to tease out.  He seems on the fence to some extent.  But I would say that finally he is more sympathetic with your view.  He speaks favorably of Tomoko Ohta's position, namely that most mutations to coding DNA are "nearly neutral instead of completely neutral."

The anti-evolutionists' backup plan has to be to undermine the definition of science itself within the curriculum. We saw hints of this in the recent Kansas business. Really, it's been implicit all along in Dembski's writing. The only way for his "Explanatory Filter" to be anything other than an Argument from Ignorance is to change the rules of science itself: to flip the benefit of the doubt away from science, and to throw out methodological naturalism to admit supernatural explanations. As their direct assaults on evolution lose traction with the public (as the coverage of Kansas suggests they will), we can expect more of this Plan-B philosophical fancy footwork instead.

I can't believe the thread has gotten this long without:

"Are we not men?"

"No! We are DEVO!"

Whip it good, comrades.

er, just in case there remains anybody who doesn't know what Brian is referring to:

http://www.punk77.co.uk/groups/devo.htm

Any good mathematical evolutionary biology grad student would probably give Dembski a run for his money on these topics.

Bill Slides By, Dang!

I'm sorry to report that I didn't make it to Dembski's lecture at all, even though it's been on my calendar for a month. I realize I didn't miss much, but it would have been fun. Unfortunately, I got slammed at work late in the day (another attorney who should have been doing something on behalf of my client today was out of town instead, so the task fell back into my lap), and I'm still in the office at quarter to ten PDT, instead of over at Demaray Hall on the SPU campus interrogating Bill.

Thanks for all the helpful comments anyway--and now that I'm painfully aware that this bogus "institute" is here in town, I'm sure other opportunities to kibitz and "report" will arise. And, Bill, I definitely owe you one!

Thanks for the recommendations, Steven. Both books look interesting. I guess it is understandable that mathematicians and biologists would have different ideas about what constitutes "extraordinarily sophisticated" mathematics.

I guess my point is that I want to see Dembski just say what he thinks happened.  And I feel that way about a lot of the people who refer to themselves as proponents of "intelligent design."  They just are not clear about what they think the designer did.  In contrast, the young universe creationists tend to offer nice clear claims. 

— Longhorn

...obligation...

—

I whole-heartedly agree.  The main failure of ID is that its proponents have never come up with a simple explanation of what happened when and how, and then marshalled evidence to back it up.  There is no theory of ID.  All they've got are crude antievolution arguments, which even if true, would not support their case.  And yes, this means that the YECs are behaving in a more scientific fashion than IDists are, which is pretty sad. However, one can critique their antievolution arguments in addition to pointing out the gaping holes in their broader reasoning.  And my only point was that Orr failed to address what was really wrong with Dembski's particular antievolution argument, which is that it simply begs the question.  The specified complexity argument, by itself, does nothing to cast doubt on the efficacy of evolution.  Orr also should have pointed out that antievolution arguments, by themselves, don't make a coherent theory, and that ID cannot be taken seriously as science until such a time as its proponents stop taking errant pot-shots at evolution and start trying to explain what actually happened.  In many respects, I think he was being far too generous.

Re "then yes there is an obligation to prove that there are things which can't evolve."

Well, cars and planes can't evolve, and those are "things". ;)

Re "Humans average 1.6 new mutations per sexual generation among coding genes;"

Does that include mutations that cause miscarriages?

Henry

Does that include mutations that cause miscarriages?

A very good refutation of Orr's article can be found here:

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1345

Salvador is wrong on both counts: it is neither good nor a refutation.

"Salvador is wrong on both counts"

what else is new?

Re discussion about neutrality.

I have never posted to a blog before: so am unclear on etiquette. Please ask for references if you want me to backup anything other than my own opinions in what I write below. For my opinions, I am only willing to argue.

First, I think most geneticists wont define neutral as the antonym of lethal: to many, it merely indicates that the number of descendants of the mutant are less in number, on average and after many generations, than the number of descendants of the non-mutant, for whatever reasons.

Second, two mutations, each of which is deleterious, can together be advantageous/neutral. Covariation is surprisingly common: just looking at HIV, an organism whose phylogeny I study, and looking at a random region in the genome, I can see by eye clusters of say tens of codons in the genome which seem to be changing together more often (I mean the 'togetherness' is more often) than I would expect by chance. Of course, this may be because my current model of change is too approximate; and I am actually doing it more formally since I need to control this covariation aspect for something else I am doing. The problems observed in offsprings of parents showing hybrid vigour could be due to similar effects, but of reassortment of covarying past mutations.

Third, the advantage or fitness depends on the environment. There is evidence that when HIV enters a new population of humans, the mutations which were worse in a previous population now fare better. (So if you want to lead a risky life, you may be better off somewhere where everyone else looks different!) The environment can also be shaped by the mutations themselves: the evidences for the rare sympatric speciations can be used as examples. For reasons related to this, I do not like using HLAs in this kind of argument.

Fourth, as Eigen stated, a rate of about one mutation/ unit/ generation (where, now we may argue that unit is most often the coding sequence in an individual, or maybe the segregating units) may be optimal in evolution if most mutations are slightly harmful. We do observe this in nature, of course with a large error of about a factor of 100 (DNA viruses seem to be exceptional, but that is probably a side effect of them not being independent replicators), but given that the mutation rates per site in the genome varies over a range of about a million, this does look like extraordinary tuning of the genome size.

Empirically, even though random mutations do maintain a high level of function of the protein, the mutated protein often does not often work *exactly* the same. (Remember that the probability of getting an exact value one for a random number uniformly distributed between, say, half and two is exactly zero.) Since growth of living forms by reproduction is an exponential in time process, even small differences show up in populations. In practice, to take a random example, out of 1003 random positions in a not too variable poly protein I have open in front of me, I have 750 positions where it is the same amino acid in almost all (techincally, greater than 97%) the HIV sequences I am looking at, and the rest show only two possible amino acids (almost).

On the other hand, there is enough reason to believe 'almost neutrality': differences are often slight. One is not asking the question whether something is 'precisely equal', rather whether the difference is small enough compared to the rate at which mutations at related sites (which can turn this into an advantage) appear, and with respect to the time over which the environment changes enough to turn deleterious into advantageous. Also, this 'almost neutrality' is definitely not the expectation for all mutations where an organism finds itself in a novel environment (like HIV when it first sees a protease inhibitor, or sees a new population of humans with a different HLA distribution).

Oops, found a typo after posting, sorry.

'to many, it merely indicates' --> 'to many, deleterious merely indicates'.

Tanmoy, thanks so much for the thoughtful, interesting post.

His [Dembski's] argument is that SC objects cannot evolve naturally, which means they must have been designed. Therefore, he is obligated to demonstrate it! I don't know I could make it any more plain than that. When one makes claim X, one has to justify claim X. Perhaps you think that Dembski is making a different claim than he really is.

A very good refutation of Orr's article can be found here:

I don't know a lot about bacterial flagella. But didn't mutations and some bacteria reproducing the number of times that they did result in the existence of the first bacterial flagellum? It is highly probable. Because that resulted in the existence of lots and lots of other bacteria. And that combination -- plus recombination and reproduction -- resulted in the existence of lots of organisms. And over the last 10,000 years, there is good reason to believe that no other kind of event has resulted in the existence of an organism. And no other kind of event is known to have resulted in the existence of bacteria or any other organism.

Admittedly, we still don't know the series of events that resulted in the first self-replicators being on earth.

This is an interesting admission from Orr, as he appears to concede that many scientists have tried to ignore intelligent design. This alone shows that intelligent design faces intense political opposition rather than fair consideration by scientists.

IDEA Clubs actively pursue interactions with Darwinists

and applaud those who are willing to come to IDEA events to learn about and discuss intelligent design.

The best way for all scientists to "deal" with intelligent design is to confront it in an honest and open-minded manner. If this happens, then intelligent design advocates know they have nothing to fear from having the cards laid out on the table.

Additionally, Orr seems to imply that Discovery is highly involved in religious activities. I just did a quick survey of the website of the Discovery Institute and it appears that of their 6 major programs, none of them are primarily focused on religion. Of their four "other programs" only two seem to deal specifically with religion.

Experimental data seems to confirm Dembski's claim, meaning that we can't evolve a flagellum by making "nice" little additions--we have many parts which are "necessary" all at once to get any functional flagellar motor.

The problem ID is interested in is the acquisition of functions in the first place--How did the functional eye first arise?

If complex biological structures exist, for which there would be no function but for an exceedingly complex and unlikely arrangement of parts, then the creative process must have been goal directed! If Orr is correct that "evolution has no goal" then perhaps the correct answer is that "evolution didn't produce these structures which require a goal-directed process in order to arise!"

But neo-Darwinism, if it is the correct account, has mandatory implications for a theist's views about how God has operated in the world.

But that's beside the point, because the point is whether or not neo-Darwinism is a viable hypothesis to explain the diversity of life on earth, and the evidence points to "not."

I publicly invite Allen Orr to explain to us how his Darwinian view of life interfaces with his personal religious beliefs. Public disclosure of Orr's personal views would go much further towards reassuring people that it is possible to believe in God and evolution than would his mere citation to a statement by a pope who said that God and evolution are compatible.

Orr devotes much space to critique but never provides any viable evolutionary explanations for the origin of the flagellum or the blood clotting cascade.

I will reiterate a challenge Dembski posed long ago to Allen Orr: "Indeed, if such accounts [of the evolution of the flagellum] were available, Orr would merely need to cite them and intelligent design would be finished."

A very good refutation of Orr's article can be found here:

— the tireless cheerleader

Appearing in such a leftist forum [The New Yorker], the editorial was predictably critical of intelligent design.

"Tell me, Sal: what's your idea of a lousy defense of ID?"

why, the Panda's Thumb, of course.

I'm sure he views us as just poorly defending ID.

Posted by Salvador T. Cordova on May 25, 2005 02:57 PM (e) (s) A very good refutation of Orr's article can be found here:

Hi everyone. Where did the energy come from that caused the "Big Bang" ?

uh, perhaps you should post that question in one of the off-topic forums?

It should be noted that the current Pope is very skeptical of Darwinism's compatibility with Christianity (see [Dembski's blog] for details).

Re "I got the number from an article by John Drake. He is at the Laboratory of Molecular Genetics in North Carolina. I think Drake was referring to all mutations."

Ah. What had crossed my mind was that if the measurements were made by comparing baby to parent, there'd be some fraction that wouldn't be counted, esp. in cases of pregnancies that never even got detected. (Had that been case the deleterious majority might have simply not been counted.) But I gather he accounted for that, so never mind.

---

A thought occurs to me here - for an allele that's widespread already (possesses by billions of individuals), most likely every single possible point mutation has occurred repeatedly over the generations, so it seems like any of those with immediate advantage would probably have already spread. That might also apply to any combination of 2 or 3 point mutations if the allele is owned by a large enough population.

Though I'm not sure how important that would be, since that effect is limited to a few point mutations at a time.

---

Re "Admittedly, we still don't know the series of events that resulted in the first self-replicators being on earth."
Or even if the replicators were specific molecules each of which made copies of itself, a mixture of molecules that produced more of each component, or a group of molecules that produced more groups like itself. My guess would be the single self replicating molecule if it's any of those, but that's just a guess.

Henry

Comment #32188 Posted by Db on May 25, 2005 08:03 PM (e) (s) Hi everyone. Where did the energy come from that caused the "Big Bang" ?

Lenny, while I often find you obnoxious, I like how you're hammering on these questions. It's good for people to see ID Apologists run from the basic questions over and over.

Hi everyone. Where did the energy come from that caused the "Big Bang" ?

Steviepinhead: Here's a story from the student newspaper about Dembski's appearance at Seattle Pacific U: http://www.thefalcononline.com/story/4714

Anybody got a tape?

better yet:

send your commentary on Dembski's "talking points" to the editor:

http://www.thefalcononline.com/letters.php

Where did the energy come from that caused the "Big Bang"?

"The question of the origin of the matter in the universe is no longer thought to be beyond the range of science ... everything can be created from nothing ... it is fair to say that the universe is the ultimate free lunch."

I guess it is understandable that mathematicians and biologists would have different ideas about what constitutes "extraordinarily sophisticated" mathematics.

In the article Ed Darrell links to (http://www.thefalcononline.com/story/4714), Bill Dembski said: "It seems to me that the evidence for evolution just is not that good. It only works in limited examples. There is no grand biological change."

What does he mean by that? It is just so absurd. No one has witnessed a rodent-like mammal evolve into a gorilla. But it is not necessary to have a person see an alleged event to know, or at least by highly justified in believing, that it occurred. No one has seen a living T-rex, and I'm sure some T-rexes drank water. No one saw planet earth 65 million years ago, and I'm quite sure it existed then.

Dembski should say what happened instead of evolution. If self-replicating molecules did not evolved into elephants, then what caused elephants to be here? Look, we have organisms on earth. Something caused them to be here. What? The existence of many elephants has been caused by sexual reproduction.

I was born. Lots of organisms have come into being through sexual reproduction. Lots have come into being through asexual reproduction.

And what does he mean by "evolution?" Does he mean that common descent is implausible? Or does he mean that that it is implausible that self-replicating molecules evolved into elephants without a deity specially intervening at one or more points? If he means the latter, why does he say that? And at what point(s) did the deity intervene?

If Dembski wants to say "Elephants were designed," what does he mean by that? It is, of course, logically possible that a being caused the existence of the space, matter and time that we associate with the known universe and that self-replicating molecules evolved into all the organisms to live on earth. But, unless it is elaborated on, the claim "elephants were design" is to vague for me to determine that "elephants were designed." And if he means that a deity turned inert matter (or "nothingness") -- poof! -- directly into the first two elephants, that didn't happen. If one balks at the expression of certainty, we should at least say that is ridiculously implausible!

As Steve Reuland has said, if Dembski is going to say that self-replicating molecules did not evolve into all the organisms to live on earth, he should say why. Evolution is the foundation of modern biology. No, that's not even right. Evolution is modern biology.

If Dembski believes that self-replicating molecules did evolve into all the organisms to live on earth and that a deity intervened at one or more points in the process, he should offer evidence. Remember, I'm relatively complex, and I was born.

I've heard some people say that it is implausible that self-replicators evolved into all the organisms that have lived on earth, because some known fossil specimens that are about 545 million years old are different than any specimens older than them. But I've spent time looking at specimens that are older than them. And every specimen I've seen that is 545 million years old or younger is at least fairly similar to at least one specimen that is older than it. Some people point to trilobites. But there is a specimen named Spriggina Floundersi that is about 600 million years old that is fairly similar to trilobites. Here is a link:

http://www.paleobase.com/gallery/metas/Spriggina1.jpg

The fossil data is not sufficient to determine that it is highly probable that self-replicating molecules evolved into all the organisms that have lived on earth. But is is supporting of that idea. Nearly every known fossil specimen is very similar anatomically to at least one known fossil specimen that is older than it and relatively close in age to it. And no known fossil specimen is very different anatomically than every known fossil specimen that is older than it. In addition, the oldest known fossils are the remains of bacteria that are about 3.5 billion years old. If we had found a gorilla specimen that was 600 million years old, then that would be important. But that's absurd.

Moreover, the fossil data is not the only relevant data available to us. The fossil data, along with other data, does enable us to determine that it is highly probable that self-replicating molecules evolved into all the organisms that have lived on earth. Some of the key data is that billions of billions of organisms have come into being through sexual reproduction, and the offspring is always a little different (in terms of genotype and phenotype) than either of its parents. Billions and billions of organisms have come into being through asexual reproduction, and the offspring is often a little different (in terms of genotype and phenotype) than the parent. In contrast, no other kind of event has resulted in the existence of an organism on earth in the last 50,000 years. For instance, no deity has turned inert matter -- poof! -- directly into an elephant. And no other kind of event is known to have caused the existence of an organism. In addition, chihuahuas and saint bernards share a common ancestor that is less than 100,000 years old, which is a blink of the eye in terms of geologic time.

As for what should be taught in the public schools, schools should teach evolution and teach it well. And the idea that teachers should teach the so-called strengths and weaknesses of evolution is ridiculous. It would give many students the impression that evolution is no more plausible than not, or only a little more plausible. And that's absurd.

Hey Longhorn, can you put an abstract on comments of that length? Some of us are busy.

BTW, I want to point out that Intelligent Design Theory needs a buddy, Intelligent Production Theory. Okay, so you say the elephant was designed. Off what production line did it roll?

Re "he also provides a very simple technical explanation (accessible to a freshman physics student) of why the gravitational field "cancels out" the energy in the universe."

Could that "cancelling out" be why the universe as a whole is so close to "flat" that they couldn't tell if it had positive curve, negative curve, or really was flat?

Henry

Re "Off what production line did it roll?"
Maybe a really big stork carried it from the factory to the jungle?

Did you expect to find Chern characteristic classes?

— Steven Thomas Smith

Could that "cancelling out" be why the universe as a whole is so close to "flat" that they couldn't tell if it had positive curve, negative curve, or really was flat?

I guess that also applies to why the surface of the Earth was flat for a large fraction of human history and then become round, huh? (Well, okay, technically it wasn't the Earth itself that changed but its occupants' viewpoint. :) )

Henry

Could that "cancelling out" be why the universe as a whole is so close to "flat" that they couldn't tell if it had positive curve, negative curve, or really was flat? I guess that also applies to why the surface of the Earth was flat for a large fraction of human history and then become round, huh?

Well, no, but both the books you recommended are written at a level substantially below that. Felsenstein presumes only the mathematical background of a typical U.S. college freshman in the physical sciences; Ewens is perhaps a semester or two beyond that.

Well, no, but both the books you recommended are written at a level substantially below that. Felsenstein presumes only the mathematical background of a typical U.S. college freshman in the physical sciences; Ewens is perhaps a semester or two beyond that.

Summary In the last month or so the Kansas School Board has been holding a review into how the origins of life are taught in Kansas schools. One board member recently said 'Evolution is a theory in crisis' and an age-old fairy tale' that is sometimes defended with 'anti-God contempt and arrogance.' Not long ago it was Creationists (arguing for a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis) at the frontline of the battle with Darwinian evolutionists. But these days, think tanks and Christian conservative groups in the US are promoting a far more politically sophisticated theory called intelligent design, that circumvents the US constitution's separation of church and state by never explicitly mentioning God. They argue evolution is a theory - not a fact, and that teaching alternative theories such as Intelligent Design should be part of the school curriculum.