A signature of a radiation in metazoan evolution

I see it as a slow-burning damp squib with a few phuts from time to time.

I wouldn't doubt that many of the splits go back before the visible explosion in the fossil record. From my readings on The Ancestor's Tale and elsewhere, it looks like the primate/mammal split occurred 70 million years ago, which is before the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, and the split between the dinos and the lines that would become mammals and marsupials (Dimetrodon, though it looked like a dinosaur, was a pelycosaur on our branch, not theirs) occurred before dinosaurs actually walked the earth.

There are a lot of things that evolved a long time before we colloquially think of them (colour vision and blood groups, for example) - it would in my mind be likelier that the shared traits predate the ability to be fossilized, and that the ability to be fossilized evolved separately due to climate change or an 'arms race'.

A few lines of errors came after posting - the errors on lines 230 and 68 came up a lot, so this is just the most varied excerpt:

Use of uninitialized value in numeric eq (==) at lib/MT/App/Comments.pm line 230.
Odd number of elements in hash assignment at lib/MT/App/Comments.pm line 68.
Use of uninitialized value in list assignment at lib/MT/App/Comments.pm line 68.
Use of uninitialized value in split at /usr/local/www/cgi-bin/mt/plugins/spamlookup/lib/spamlookup.pm line 467.
Use of uninitialized value in numeric lt (<) at lib/MT/JunkFilter.pm line 30.

We are worms.

Odd that the fungus should be so neat, though.

I was aware that the Cambrian explosion is still the subject of some debate.My understanding(for what its worth),is that the explosion may have been
precipitated by several environmental changes in and just before this period.Varangian glaciation gave rise to a rapid climate change which covered nearly all the oceans with ice.This was followed by rapid global warming,which vacated many new environments and provided the impetus for rapid evolution.Of the 20 or so metazoan phyla,around 11 appeared in the Cambrian, of the rest, only one has been found to be pre Cambrian, the others appear more recently

Note that there are plenty of precursors. Here are a couple: Small bilaterian fossils from 40 to 55 million years before the cambrian and a slightly larger Proterozoic modular biomineralized metazoan from a few million years prior to the Cambrian. There is a rumor that Prof. Steve Steve will show us some more Ediacaran creatures one day soon. Sorting out the family tree is the problem.

This is old news. I wrote in Sept. 2000:

"The real issue is that for a very long period of time there were only unicellular organisms, bacteria, algae, etc. and then at one point in time, somewhere around 600 m.y.a., a great leap foward occurred and multicellular animals made their appearance all at once, and in a very short period of time. All of the invertebrate body plans were 'found' if you will, in a period of time that was 'the blink of an eye' in evolutionary and geological time. After that time, no new body plans were ever found again. One must wonder why this was so.
You can fiddle with the dates and the boundaries, but you can't ignore the larger picture of sudden, widespread appearance of a multitude of different groups of invertebrates. I don't think that this is a scenario that favors the mechanism of mutation and natural selection, which calls for the gradual accumulations of beneficial mutations over long periods of time. And why so many different kinds of animals? And how did they come to be distributed world-wide? These are the questions that keep me awake at night."

and this:

"I agree that all living organisms are related and probably had a common origin. My question addresses the adequacy of copying errors and selection to create the complex and varied body plans that we see appear in the lower Cambrian.
You agree that no one knows the cause of the Cambrian explosion, but why are you so repelled by the possibility that new genetic material may have been introduced from outer space? This is a common reaction that I encounter wherever I go to talk about this subject.
Har-har-har-de-har-har!!! Genes from Space...Right!!!

It seems to me like a plausible alternative to the problem posed by the evidence.
And by the way, I've never believed, and still do not believe that major adaptations of new processes, structures etc. can ever be driven by environmemtal changes. When I first heard the theory about human-chimp divergence being brought on by the ancestral populations being separated by geological changes, I damn near laughed my ass off.
And the oceans...there's a poser. Conditions on the sea floor are fairly uniform from one place to another, yet evolutionists would have us believe that the thousands of different species that live there evolved as a result of differences in their environment.
The evidence for space genes is there, we just have to uncover it. It may take time. We gave darwinism 140 years to find the transitional fossils, and yet, they're still missing, just like they were in 1859.
Maybe you could give us panspermists a few more years, ok?"

and this:

"Darwin himself was more than slightly concerned about the ramifications of the Cambrian explosion. In his book he writes:
'Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures. (Ch 10, pg 313)
Now Darwin, following the only path available to him at the time, explained this problem as an artifact of preservation. Walcott, in his analysis of the Burgess fauna, took the
same position, that the ancestry of the Cambrian fauna was concealed in sediments that were now buried below the oceans. Now, in the year 2000,
it is clear to us that these rock layers are not missing. In addition, paleontology has revealed to us the rocks of the pre-cambrian (vendian) are not totally devoid of fossils. While there is some evidence for a long period of pre-cambrian evolution, the appearance of diverse,
shelly fossils is sudden, wide-spread, and remains an enigma. It is clearly not an artifact of inadequate preservation.
Now, turning to the time periods involved. I think that it's safe to say that this still remains a controversial issue. I will certainly grant you 20 million years from the Vendian to the first appearance of small, shelly fauna. But the Cambrian explosion is not just a story of hard skeletons, as seen in the Chengjiang and Burgess fauna. Large numbers of soft-bodied groups are represented in a well preserved state, and in widely diversified form. This rapid diversification in the lower Cambrian established all of the major body plans that are present in modern fauna. It is also safe to say that there is still much discussion and disagreement among the experts themselves as to the relationships of some of the groups, as well as how rapidly the metazoan radiation occurred and what triggered it. In short, both the Chengjiang and the Burgess have presented scientists with as many questions as it answers.
Now if you look at the very oldest of the fossils, they are found in rocks of about 650-700 million years ago, although some doubtful examples have been found in older rocks. But it nowhere approaches Darwin's hope that during these pre-cambrian times "the world swarmed with living creatures". Where there metazoans in the pre-cambrian? Of course there were. But the "explosion" that is referred to, is not the appearance of metazoans, but the burst of innovation, and the rapid diversification of not only metazoans, but algae and protists as well.
Many explanations have been offered for this momentous event, including changes in the physical environment, critical levels of oxygen in the atmosphere and changes in the chemistry of the oceans. But any plausible hypothesis has to also account for the expansion of soft-bodied groups as well as skeletons. Other explanations are organism centered, rather than environment centered. Examples include larger size, which may have triggered an increase in complexity or the development of life strategies, such as predation. However, in spite of all the hypotheses, no one emerges as a clear and satisfactory explanation and the emergence of metazoans remains a central enigma in biology today.
I myself find most of the suggested explanations less than satisfying.
We do know, however, that it appears that nearly a billion years passed with no movement towards multicellularity, and then at one point in time, a very rapid expansion and diversification of multi-cellular organisms occurred. It also appears that while some simple metazoans did exist in older rocks, the burst of innovation and diversification was indeed rapid and widespread, and occurred in a rather short period of time. Now we can argue till kingdom come about what happened but the fact remains that we weren't there and we have damned little evidence to go on.
Therefore I suggest that we follow this path. Continue to collect data, and hopefully in the near future an explanation will emerge that is clear and convincing. But I think that it's unscientific, given the present uncertainty, to rule out the extra-terrestrial immigration of genetic material from outer space.
You don't eliminate a hypothesis just because you don't like it, or even because there's no present evidence for it. You rule it out if and when it is clearly demonstrated to be false."

Sean (and his associates), while I admire his work, is clearly behind the curve on this.

Read the whole thread HERE:
tinyurl dot com/7mcz8

Paul replied:

"Charlie, Carroll and company have something you don't: data."

I replied:

"Agreed.

And their data supports the views I have been expressing for many years. The cambrian explosion was real, not an artifact and the paleo data is stronger than the molecular data. You wrote:
"One camp holds that the rapid divergence of the metazoan phyla in the Cambrian is real: the different phyla all arose sometime around the boundary, 543 million years ago, and then evolved into the various forms we see now. This interpretation is supported by the fossil record, in which the first recognizable representatives of the phyla are found from roughly the same period.
Another interpretation is that the Cambrian explosion is only apparent: that the divergence occurred well before 543 million years ago, and that there was a long period of undetectable evolution. The major groups of animals separated 600 or perhaps even as much as 700 million years ago, flourished as small wormlike forms that would have fossilized poorly, and what the Cambrian represents is an emergence of larger forms with hard body parts that fossilized well.

The former view is strongly supported by observational data from the fossil record. The latter view is easily debunked (as I stated 5 years ago) by the fact that large assemblages of soft bodied fossils have been discovered in the Burgess and Chengjiang and none show the evidences for these presumed but undiscovered forms.

Credit where credit is due, Paul."

I'm not so sure that it's a good idea to try and deny the reality of what happened in the Cambrian. the point is valid and you would be well advised to concede it.

Spectacular Fossils Record Early Riot of Creation"
by John Noble Wilford
New York Times April 23, 1991

"New fossil discoveries in China hailed as among the most spectacular in this century, show the dramatic transformation of life from primeval single-celled organisms to the complex multicellular precursors of modern fauna was more sudden, swift and widespread than scientists had thought.
From cream-colored sediments of what was a sea floor 570 million years ago, paleontologists have extracted specimens of 70 species of trilobites, worms, sponges and various ancestors of crustaceans, spiders and insects. They are not only the oldest such fossils ever found but, more remarkably, their soft body parts as well as skeletal and shell remains are unusually well preserved.
The fossils give scientists their first glimpse of the strange creatures that populated the seas in the early stage of what is known as the cambrian explosion. The cambrian gelogical period, from 570 million to 500 million years ago saw the appearance of increasingly complex marine animals in a riot of shapes and anatomical designs anticipating much of life as it is today"
(snip)
Dr Jan Bergstrom, a paleontologist at the Swedish Museum of Natural History...said they suggested that the cambrian transition was 'a revolution, perhaps more than evolution'.
Most of the Chinese fossils, Dr. Bergstrom said, resemble species identified in the Burgess Shale...

(Bergstrom expands on this in his own paper in "Research and Development" (Winter 1991) by pointing out that the Chengjiang fossils are not much different from the Burgess fossils despite their 40 million year difference in time. This is enigmatic, considering the fact that evolution should have been proceeding rapidly during this time, as it
apparently had in the preceeding time period.)
(snip)

"The similarities (with the Burgess fossils) are the basis for the conclusion that the diversification and proliferation of new life forms must have occurred rapidly at the onset on the cambrian period.
"Evolution of these creatures must have been a sudden and widespread phenomenon" Dr. Bergstrom and his colleagues wrote..."
(snip)
"As the full import of the discovery is recognized, scientists are describing the fossils as 'genesis material' and one of the most exciting finds...since the Burgess."
"Dr. Andrew Knoll, a Harvard University expert on early life said:
'We knew from the Burgess that there was a tremendous diversity of life in the Cambrian. Most of everything that was going to happen, all the ways of making invertebrate animals, had already happened by the mid-cambrian. Now it seems that new life forms were invented within the first few million years of the cambrian."
(snip)
"Dr. Bergstrom said it was quite possible that..."you could have the formation of an entirely new type of animal within thousands of years."

(Or, of course, they certainly could have arrived suddenly on earth from
elsewhere...)

These observations certainly appear to me to be incompatible with a darwinian scenario of variation and selection, based on the slow accumulation of beneficial mutations over a long period of time. In fact, it sort of nails the coffin shut on gradualism, which is the
foundation of darwinian theory. Clearly, the fossil record falsifies the darwinian paradigm.
These discoveries were made 15 years ago. It's old news. It's settled, as far as I'm concerned. The only reason it's still an issue is because so many scientists simply refuse to let go of the darwinian weltanschauung and continually invent new "explanations" and create new obfuscations. Let it go, for god's sake.

"The real issue is that for a very long period of time there were only unicellular organisms, bacteria, algae, etc. and then at one point in time, somewhere around 600 m.y.a., a great leap foward occurred and multicellular animals made their appearance all at once, and in a very short period of time. All of the invertebrate body plans were 'found' if you will, in a period of time that was 'the blink of an eye' in evolutionary and geological time. After that time, no new body plans were ever found again. One must wonder why this was so."

"No new body plans"? I guess it depends on how you define "body plan" because it sure seems to me that nothing like a bird, or a mammal, or a winged insect appeared in the Cambrian. (No flowering plants or for that matter land plants of any kind either, but then the critics of evolution always tend to overlook plants.) And how about Sacculina, a weird parasite with a body plan more like a fungus or an amoeba?

Of course all animals are descended from previously-existing animals--they don't appear from nowhere--and anything especially new and different (like Sacculina) that evolved after the Cambrian would have evolved from an already-existing phylum and would tend to be pigeonholed in that phylum, no matter how different it was (we can identify Sacculina as a crustacean only because it has a nauplius larva). So I don't buy the claim that "no new body plans were ever found again." Sure, the Cambrian "explosion" seems to have been real, so if there are naturalistic explanations that don't involve mutation and natural selection (with a few jokers like mass extinctions thrown in), let's hear them.

But nope, "no new body plans". Keep telling yourself that.

P.S.: we don't know for a fact that all the phyla or "body plans" originated during the Cambrian "explosion". For one thing, there are some phyla that make their first appearance in the fossil record well after the Cambrian (like Bryozoa) and numerous others for which we have no fossil record at all.

In addition, it appears that some of the classically-defined phyla--which have been morphologically defined by their "body plans"--are not natural and that some of the traditionally recognized "phyla" are polyphyletic or paraphyletic, and certain phyls have indeed evolved from others at some point after the Cambrian "explosion".

"No new body plans"? I guess it depends on how you define "body plan" because it sure seems to me that nothing like a bird, or a mammal, or a winged insect appeared in the Cambrian."

"No new body plans"? I guess it depends on how you define "body plan" because it sure seems to me that nothing like a bird, or a mammal, or a winged insect appeared in the Cambrian."

Nobody cares what you think, Charlie. (shrug)

Look for the word "body plan" in a whole bunch of my sentences. You are making a specific claim that "new new body plans were ever found again [after the Cambrian explosion]" and I'm saying your flat-out wrong, unless you define such words as "new", "body plans", "ever", "found", and "again" in a very specific, very narrow way, and EVEN THEN you're wrong. I contend that that difference between the modern representatives of the phyla and their earliest ancestors that appeared in the Cambrian "explosion" is huge, and there has been at least as much evolutionary novelty within the phyla as there has been between them; we simply regard the patterns of origin of that novelty differently because we have more direct evidence of it.

"And the oceans...there's a poser. Conditions on the sea floor are fairly uniform from one place to another..."

Now who's laughing whose ass off?

(BTW I may be judging you too harshly, maybe you're making sense somewhere in that mishmash and if so I apologize for my tone but after reading it a couple of times I'm still not entirely sure what you're saying or what your point is.)

maybe you're making sense somewhere in that mishmash

I've wondered if anyone has used genetic data to answer questions about last common ancestor issues among invertebrate phyla or would that be considered a waste of time and resources. Would the elapsed time since LCA be so great that any statement based on DNA profile be meaningless. If studies such as these have been done do they fully support the fossil record? I had asked once about using genetic data on reptile relations and I remember a response that the depth of division in time was so great that such data might be meaningless. If so is there a time limit beyond which nothing meaningful can be gained from comparative DNA analysis?

Note that there are plenty of precursors.

— Pete Dunkelberg

No matter how you slice it, what we see in the fossil record cannot be matched up to Darwinian expectations.

Blast writes "There may be 'plenty' of precursors, but not as many as Darwin expected. He expected the pre-Cambrian to be of the same length of geologic time as the Cambrian to the present: viz, ~540 MY. And he expected the pre-Cambrian to be as fully stocked with life forms as from the Cambrian to the present.

No matter how you slice it, what we see in the fossil record cannot be matched up to Darwinian expectations"

Modern evolutionary biology is no more beholden to Darwin than modern physics is to Newton.

As usual, you have no argument, just misinformation, halftruths and lies.

Do endeavor to do better. You're wasting electricity.

Re "and there has been at least as much evolutionary novelty within the phyla as there has been between them;"

Yeah, there'd have to be, wouldn't there. From what I've read on the subject over the last 10 years or so, I'd think that those Cambrian precursors to the modern phyla wouldn't have been any more different from each other than classes (or maybe orders) are today (i.e., a group of scientists studying them at that time would have called them orders or classes of one phylum).

Henry

I'm new here, but I'm confused by the comment "this is not an event that challenges evolutionary theory, nor should it give comfort to creationists of any stripe."

I thought evolution was mute on the origin of life. IOW, I didn't think that design and evolution were mutually exclusive points of view.

Design at some level is a possibility and a plausible hypothesis.

I'm also wondering, as a newbie, what are the laws of evolution? You know what I mean? For example, there's electromagnetic theory, and the laws of electromagnetism. The laws are those aspects of the theory that have been tested and verifed in the "lab" so to speak and can be used to predict future events.

You're a bit transparent, Dave. Those are rather poor questions of the sort clueless creationists ask.

I disagree that evolution is mute on the origin of life. There's a lot of interesting work being done on chemical evolution.

Most importantly, though, the topic here is not about the origin of life. It's about the Cambrian, when there was a radiation of metazoan life. The origin of life was a few billion years earlier.

The difference between design and evolution is that there is no evidence for design, and there is a lot of evidence for evolution. Design is currently exclusive from science, because it is not based on evidence and observation. You'll have to do some work to make it scientific, something creationists seem loath to do.

Possibility and plausibility are not sufficient to be scientific.

There are laws of evolution: the Hardy-Weinberg law, for instance. You are being disingenuous, though, and expressing a naive view of science that assumes "laws" are something particularly valued and higher in a hierarchy of 'truth'. This is another common creationist misinterpretation.

I strongly recommend that you try to learn something about evolution from a biology text rather than your preacher or some creationist website. I'm sure you think you are being clever and cunning, but we're laughing at you.

Modern evolutionary biology is no more beholden to Darwin than modern physics is to Newton. As usual, you have no argument, just misinformation, halftruths and lies.

— Stuart Weinstein

Anyway, are you trying to imply that evolution in 2006 ought to be judged by what Charles Darwin did or did not understand 140 years ago?

— Arden Chatfield

There are laws of evolution: the Hardy-Weinberg law, for instance.

— PZ Myers

You don't seem to understand H-W. It describes the stable state under which there is no selection for a particular allele. It is particularly useful because when we observe deviations from H-W equilibrium, it tells us the population is changing in the frequency of a particular allele.

It does not say that all populations obey the "law" and are therefore static.

Wowzers!.... blisters projects from the past
The only difference between DarwinismCreationism of 1859, and neo-DarwinismCreationism of 2006, is that there is a mathematico-genetic sublayer to it. Meaning that MendelianBlastfromthepastian genetics---with its corpuscularsnake toxin basis---is invoked, and, along with Fisherian Dembskian,Sewellian mathematics, is used to give the impression that RM+NS can lead to can NOT lead todiversity of forms. This is a technical, and, in strictly in terms of theory, a rather minor modification of DarwinismCreationism-1859. I'm afraid BLAST you're strapped with a 19th-century scientificCreationismtheory.

And, BTW, it is a big deal that more forms are not seen in the fossil record since, per Blast himself, this is dispositive for his theory---no minor detail here.

The creationism of 2006 denies most of genetics and uses bogus mathematics, so I don't think the comparison is exactly parallel.

Also, I failed to mention the biggest error in BlastfromthePast's comment. The H-W law does not state that alleles can be neither created nor destroyed.

Of course PZ Thats why when Blast projects he includes his one true word of Blast^TM version of pseudo_genetic sublayer and we all know that Dembski,Sewell only have pseudo mathematics going for them.
Blast already has the answer and it make me wonder why he even bothers to ask.
tcht ....of course

The old "I think therefor I am"

"Yet ah! why should they know their fate?
Since sorrow never comes too late,
And happiness too swiftly flies.
Thought would destroy their paradise.
No more; where ignorance is bliss,
'Tis folly to be wise."
--Ode for Music by Thomas Gray

begging the question.

Begging the question does not mean to bring up the question. It means to present as true a premise that requires proof--i.e., taking a conclusion for granted before it is proved or assuming in the premises of your argument what is supposed to be proved in the conclusion. (This fallacy is related to the circular argument.)

Well, I apologize for being OT, but again, what are the major laws of evolution? I'm assuming that this is a no-brainer, but I checked my two college biology texts (good, mainstream texts used in all the universities) and cannot find them.

We have H-W for starters. Are there others?

I appreciate your acknowledgement that design is a possibility. I think its fair to say that design is a valid scientific hypothesis, but that work needs to be done to develop a forensic science that can detect/demonstrate design much the same way that we have forensic science that can conclude that life originated 4 billion years ago.

David,

Design *IS* a possibility but it is *NOT* a scientific hypothesis.

As a rule if it can't be disproved, it isn't a scientific hypothesis.

So the first hurdle for the ID folks is to construct a test that could disprove design.

Even if it passes that hurdle and becomes a valid hypothesis, it still won't be acknowledged as the leading theory until it can *BETTER* explain all of the evidence for evolution.

Since evolution explains such a wide variety of phenomenon and it agrees with results in other fields (e.g. geology, physics, astronomy, cosmology, chemistry); this will take many decades of dedicated & difficult work.

So far, the ID/creationists haven't even tried to phrase ID in a falsifiable form.

Here is the HW Law from ndsu.edu. Is there a better or more complete definition?

The Hardy-Weinberg Law

The unifying concept of population genetics is the Hardy-Weinberg Law (named after the two scientists who simultaneously discovered the law). The law predicts how gene frequencies will be transmitted from generation to generation given a specific set of assumptions. Specifically,

If an infinitely large, random mating population is free from outside evolutionaryforces (i.e. mutation, migration and natural selection),

then the gene frequencies will not change over time and the frequencies in the next generation will be p2 for the AA genotype, 2pq for the Aa genotype and q2 for the aa genotype.

Is OT short for ObTuse? You are being too disingenuous. Looking for "Laws" is a kind of naive and fallacious scientism that I see all the time from creationists. What are the "Laws" of ID?

I agree with Jim that ID is not a valid scientific hypothesis. As I drum into my intro students, "scientific hypothesis" does not mean "random guess". You have to build from a logical, evidence-based rationale first, and ID does not do that.

Oh, and Dave...charging in with wide-eyed superficial questions and trying to play a game of gotcha with scientists when you've never even heard of Hardy-Weinberg is a serious mistake. Go home, read a book or two (here's a list to get you started), and come back when you can ask an intelligent question.

Jim:

Thanks for your reply - I think you captured the key issue with the design hypothesis, one that I struggle with.

To me, the alternative hypothesis is that of information evolution. IOW, if one can show that complex specified information can arise from undirected, natural processes, then you would satisfy the requirement of falsification of the design hypothesis.

Forensics (fossil record, DNA analysis) indicates that this has happened (or hasn't, but that's a debate for another time), but forensic science is far weaker than observational science. In that realm, there are no known naturalistic mechanisms that can create the type of information for example that specifies the construction and folding of a DNA molecule. Information scientists have been trying to do this for decades with no success as well.

So, I think we have a test for falsification and its squarely in the camp of the evolutionary biologists to demonstrate thru science, done in the lab.

The ID folks need to focus on the forensic science regarding design inference, along the lines of Dembski, Meyer, Behe, Denton, Kenyon, etc...

Dave

I'm an electrical engineer so asking about the laws is probably just consistent with my background, as opposed to some vast righ wing conspiracy. Its a valid question that surprises me that you cannot easily answer. Especially necessary for evolution given that the theory is so vaguely and ambiguously defined.

Dave,

A couple of problems here...

When someone proposes a competing idea (one that challenges the current best explanation for a phenomenon - ala evolution) in science, it is up to the challengers to:
1) phrase it scientifically (which ID has not)
2) propose means of falsifying the idea (which ID has not)
3) perform those test (which ID has not)

After step 3), the idea could be termed a scientifically valid hypothesis but it still is not considered a challenger to the currently leading theory.

However, in order to challenge the leading theory it must also at a minimum also
4) explain all current observations at least as well as the current leading theory.

In essence you have two ideas competing in a marathon race. The starter gave ID a 6000 year head start. The theory of evolution has already crossed the finish line and is collecting the 1rst place trophy, while ID is still talking to the reporters at the STARTING LINE.

When you point this out to the ID team, they whine about the unfairness of it all but they still won't run the race.

Science has long passed the petty need to call things laws. The laws of electromagnetism have been superceded by the theory of quantum electrodynamics, the law of gravity has been superceded by Einstein's general theory of relativity, the laws of thermodynamics are derived from the theory of statistical mechanics and so on.
Trying to argue against evolution on the basis that there are no 'laws' only an entirely adequate theory is simply childish namecalling.

An...engineer? Man, I think we're going to have to start calling it Salem's Law instead of Salem's Hypothesis.

CSI is a perfect example of the concepts behind ID.

Ask the "creator" of CSI to provide an objective, rational, explanation for it that applies to all cases.

CSI only provides the answers that the ID folks want when they get to pick the examples and "guess" the input. When anyone else attempts to use it objectively, it generates nonsense output.

In essence, both CSI (& IC since it shares these characteristics) are anti-science.

It is up to the originator of these ideas (Dembski & Behe respectively) to "jump through the hoops". Not for other scientists to "prove them wrong". Otherwise you could get quacks to triumphantly state "invisible pink unicorns are the source of cosmic rays" and force the public schools to "Teach" their pet ideas.

Despite this, I know of several examples that have "disproved" Behe's version of IC. I'm not aware of the state of CSI.

To me, the alternative hypothesis is that of information evolution. IOW, if one can show that complex specified information can arise from undirected, natural processes, then you would satisfy the requirement of falsification of the design hypothesis.

As I understand it, Dembski admitted long ago that the S in CSI was largely subjective. More recently, he has admitted that false positives cannot be ruled out - that something might *appear* to be specified that in fact was not. So Dembski distinguished between "real" and "apparent" specification. But the problem was, the only way to tell the difference in practice was by deciding a priori which was which.

But this only served to remove the emperor's clothes altogether - Dembski had reached the point where we know life has CSI because we SAY it has CSI, and because we say so, it's "real" CSI. But if we didn't already know it, there's no way we could have used any of his techniques to determine it. He was simply dressing up a statement of faith-based preference with lots of bogus mathematistical jargon and symbolism.

I haven't heard Dembski doing any vigorous defense of his Filter recently. He dropped out of the recent debate challenge, dropped out of the Dover defense, closed down his blog, and been keeping a low profile.

...and find it pre-obliterated for your convenience.

So are you saying that the "Theory of Evolution", the foundation of modern biology, has no laws which specify how it works.

And, are you also saying that the theory is specified in such a vague manner, you can't derive any scientifically testable laws from it.

Or, am I missing something?

BTW - PZ, thanks for the reading list, most of those books would qualify as propaganda, but I saw a few titles of interest.

the only way to tell the difference in practice was by deciding a priori which was which

Or, am I missing something?

most of those books would qualify as propaganda,

Comment #67301 Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 3, 2006 05:02 PM (e) (s) ...and find it pre-obliterated for your convenience. That's a nice catch phrase. I'm gonna add that to my list of t-shirt logos, if you don't mind.

Or, am I missing something?

Yes. Basically, the entire foundation of modern science, if you keep talking about "laws."

Now, do you want to learn something, or do you want to score debating"points"?

So are you saying that the "Theory of Evolution", the foundation of modern biology, has no laws which specify how it works. And, are you also saying that the theory is specified in such a vague manner, you can't derive any scientifically testable laws from it. Or, am I missing something?

Long-term memory, perhaps? That could explain why you seem not to remember the Hardy-Weinberg Law less than 3 hours after you asked about its definition. Unless, of course, you're merely missing intellectual honesty.

I would probably feel a little speechless, and wonder what pit of snakes I'd just stumbled into.

Hi! I'm an innocent, unbiased seeker after knowledge, since I don't have any of it yet. And what I want to know is, what IS a scientific law? Isn't it, as Gould said, something so empirically well-attested that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent?

But, but, wait a minute. If that's the case, then scientific laws may suffer exceptions! Which means there aren't any laws really. Doesn't that mean that anything at all might be true, and we can't ever be absolutely sure? And doesn't that, in turn, mean science is all just made up? Aha! I knew it all along.

*snicker*

Doesn't that mean that anything at all might be true, and we can't ever be absolutely sure? And doesn't that, in turn, mean science is all just made up? Aha! I knew it all along.

Well, I never said I was a creationist, however I appreciate that on a site like this your spider sense will tingle if anyone asks a question that even suggests a hint of dissent, and yes, HW was one law that was cited, although in terms of explaning evolution, it does not seem to be exactly what I am looking for. Please forgive me for my ommision.

So, we are still at one law, any others or a source that I could reference?

I'm also wondering what is the most generally accepted definition of the theory of evolution.

Maybe this'll help clarify my thinking on law vs theory:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don't really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook's law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

You exhibit all the same patterns as the typical creationist does, so what else should we conclude?

we already refered you to complete documentation of evidence and theory, which you have summarily dismissed as "propaganda".

here's another one:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

go and learn.

then come back and convince us you actually know what the theory entails, including postulates and "laws" contained therein.

or, don't come back. all the same.

Well for the unbiased observers that come across this thread, what they should see is that strong advocates of evolution are unable to clearly articulate what their theory is all about nor demonstrate that the theory can be expressed in terms of actionable scientific laws.

What I conclude is that evolution is a weak scientific theory or that you all don't know what you are talking about.

What I conclude is that evolution is a weak scientific theory or that you all don't know what you are talking about.

So, Dave, you are specifically provided with links to the places that lay the theory out in detail, and which provide at least some of the massive amount of evidence that support the theory, but--even though you haven't bothered to read them--you're convinced in advance that they are "propaganda," and when the people that happen to have stumbled across your "thoughts" can't supply you with an equation that fits on the back of an envelope, or between your two front teeth, you--in all your utterly uninformed glory--are fatuous enough to announce that the theory you haven't gotten off your fat butt to take one realistic look at is "weak."

Somehow, I doubt that the "unbiased observers" are going to conclude anything from any of this beyond the fact that you are too lazy to be bothered doing your homework.

(Sigh. Where do these maroons come from?)

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact

meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions.

It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation.

Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don't really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

(Sigh. Where do these maroons come from?)

What I conclude is that evolution is a weak scientific theory or that you all don't know what you are talking about.

Hey Blast. Long time no see. Hiding after the Dover debacle, were ya?

How that you're back, maybe you could tell me where those genes for cobra venom are in garter snakes . . . . ?

(snicker) (giggle)

Oh, and just wait till you meet your new friend Larry . . . . .

The Dover board just officially voted down the ID "program":

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?at=GENERAL&fn=/2006/01/03/296169.html.

In science class, yes. However, they did mention at some point that they might investigate introducing the concepts into social studies class.

I didn't see any specifics. Have you run across any articles about that?

Not yet.

There's a bit more--and a shorter url!--here, but nothing on your point of concern:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10698535/.

Hey I'm all for teaching the real story behind ID in
Social studies,
Political science,
Constitutional law,
HISTORY;
For example the PAST HISTORY of ideas included with other religious and political movements,Theocracies and Dictatorships.

The propaganda techniques,
where the support came from in terms of money
what the motives were of the leaders
(to remove the ability of the person in the street to distinguish between fact and fiction) by censoring and devaluing critical thinking.

the grass roots support fired up by making each and everyone a victim of their own mind because their magical reality was under direct threat of being destroyed by AN IDEA ,

the wedge techniques,
the attempts to deligitimize democratic law and reality as defined by observation.

Name: Kate Hometown: Cerritos, CA Even though I may not agree with the theory itself, I think that all plausable theories should be offered to students so that they can make up their own minds. I attended a private school and was not taught the theory of evolution. I think that all schools should offer all theories, and teach them in a systematic way so as to empower students to decide what they believe for themselves.

Name: Luke Hinton Hometown: Princeton, KY As a Christian, I obviously believe that the God of the Bible created the universe. My faith is just as reasonable as an atheist, and it actually takes less faith to believe in a Designer than to believe that everything came from nothing by nothing and evolved by chance. Schools should teach both. This is not about separation of church and state; everyone takes that out of context. The state is not trying to control the church, and PA is claiming no specific religion by teaching creationism; they are teaching a theory based on faith and more evidence than evolutionists have.

Name: Richard D. Trifan Hometown: Ringwood, New Jersey The judge ruled correctly, and sensibly, for if we reverse our progress for the last 150 years and cede the evolutionary process to a God (again!) we would be not only ignorant but, as a country, the laughingstock of the world.

you might have noticed that there are only 32 in the group counts.

there was one respondent who i simply couldn't fit into any category, believe it or not.

Does anybody else besides me think that everybody is being awfully hard on Dave? It doesn't matter if he's trolling or not, it's possible to answer his questions and point out some problems with his premises--which others who are lurking may share--without being abusive (as Flint was able to do pretty thoroughly).

Well, I am at fault for initiating this OT discussion.

I have read many of the web sites and books that PZ referenced. Lets face it, there's quite a bit of propaganda being peddled with respect to evolution and much of it is wrong or highly speculative.

I do appreciate MrDarwin's comments.

Finally, after reviewing some additiional materials on genetics and evolution since yesterday, I'm still highly skeptical that current evolutionary theory can explain the origin of biological features and capabilities like protein synthesis, blood clotting, bacterial flagella, etc... But I also acknowledge that there is more to genetics than what Mendel discovered and that not knowing the specific mechanism does not mean that the mechanism does not exist.

As far as the abusive comments go, I appreciate where they come from, but ultimately they work against your interests.

Lets face it, there's quite a bit of propaganda being peddled with respect to evolution and much of it is wrong or highly speculative.

— Dave

Grey - I agree, lets keep it on the topic of evolution, because that is what is being taught in our public schools today and is considered to be the foundation of modern biology. But I will point out that the "anti-creationist" books are mostly propaganda and don't strive to educate the reader on the real issues and challenges of both a purely naturalistic science and a science that seeks the best explanations for observable phenomena.

The kids books are essentially propaganda - they present evolution in a dogmatic fashion to children that typically are not ready to think critically. In a few of these books, the story begins much like Genesis does, as a telling of a creation myth. If we're trying to train children to think critically or scientifically, go elsewhere. If we are trying to indoctrinate the next generation of PT priests, these books are for you. (Especially "Life on Earth" and "Our Family Tree")

The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins - almost by definition a book by Dawkins will provide many examples of my concerns. Here we have Dawkins refuting the design hypothesis which in other forums Dawkins will say is not a valid scientific hypothesis because it can't be refuted. This guy is a zoologist, and shouldn't be treated as an authority about cellular mechanisms and how they evolved, particularly when he presents his opinions as fact and brow beats anyone who would dissent.

Then, there are three books that look at Archaeopteryx, Finch beaks, and whale evolution. These books generally gloss over the real problems and limitations of what can really be inferred by these examples. They are all speculative examples presented in a dogmatic fashion. One example from the Archaeopteryx book is a mis-characterization of an individual who disagrees with Darwinian evolution as someone who disaproves of it. In that book, the Darwinists are teh good guys and those who disagree are the ignorant bad guys.

I could go on and on and on.. but I want to catch a bit of the Rose Bowl. TTFN

These books generally gloss over the real problems

I think I see where Dave is coming from, though. If what biology concludes is not congenial to prior convictions, then of course any conclusions biologists draw will be dogma, any uncertainties they may have will be "speculations", incomplete explanations of anything are "glossed over", and even the clearest possible (or at least available) explanations of how evolution is thought to work is dismissed as a "refutation of design."

I also agree that we start children off with scientific knowledge presented in the form of "just so" stories. In fact, we start children off with ANY knowledge this way. As their minds gradually become more capable, it's possible (if we wish to do so) to expand any understanding almost indefinitely. It's also clearly possible to reinforce a given "because I said so" story until the resulting faith is impervious to the penetration of any conflicting knowledge.

It certainly looks from here like Dave disapproves of Darwin, but does NOT disagree, since he doesn't understand the topic well enough to disagree. But it takes no knowledge to disapprove.

First - I don't consider the label creationist to be derogatory. Why do you? Creation is a possibility, and of course, so is spontaneous generation, but I don't think anyone at this point can disquality either hypothesis. I do think there is a valid debate over the question of creation being a scientific hypothesis, but I don't think its responsible of you to convey the notion that being a creationist or simply acknowledging the possibility is somehow wrong minded.

Flint - you make some very good points. I just struggle with "just so" stories pertaining to science that read like religious texts. And, perhaps this practice of teaching dogmatically is one of the reasons why science education in the US is so abysmal. I educate my kids at home, and do not teach them in this manner, and last year two of them placed first in our state science fair. I'm not necessarily saying that the dogmatic style is wrong, just not the only way, and has some potential if not inherent problems.

For example, when you teach in a dogmatic fashion, you short circuit criticial thinking, and reinforce deference to authority.

But really, Flint, what is the theory of evolution? What are its major laws that express how it works? Do those laws explain the origin of biological mechanisms such as DNA synthesis?

Sir Toejam - I wouldn't care so much about the dogma and speculation if the science was there to support it. But most of those books in PZ's list are not objective science texts.

And finally, HOOK'EM HORNS! Woohoo! UT's the better school and now the better football team! ;-)

Why do you?

Posted by Dave on January 5, 2006 01:07 AM (e) (s) First - I don't consider the label creationist to be derogatory. Why do you? Creation is a possibility, and of course, so is spontaneous generation, but I don't think anyone at this point can disquality either hypothesis. I do think there is a valid debate over the question of creation being a scientific hypothesis, but I don't think its responsible of you to convey the notion that being a creationist or simply acknowledging the possibility is somehow wrong minded...

I could go on and on and on..

But really, Flint, what is the theory of evolution? What are its major laws that express how it works?

Sir Toejam - You need to be careful, I didn't say I was from Texas, nor did I say I was a creationist. Anyway, James Clerk Maxwell, among others, was a creationist, and so was Gregor Mendel who defined the initial laws of genetics. In addition to their scientific credentials, they were men of great character, not likely to commit an enron.

Flint - Gotcha, I concede that it is not necessary for a valid science to be undergirded by strict, mathematical laws like those we find in Physics, or even like Mendel's for Genetics.

However, I would like to see an enumerated list of things like HW. Maybe more along the lines of the central dogma of biology, perhaps, and then lets see if all the various statements are logically consistent.

Stephen Elliot - I agree with you, given how you are defining terms. But, I'm intriqued by the hypothesis of intelligent design as defined by Stephen Meyer. Over time, he and others may be able to develop a science that can statistically infer that some artifact was indeed designed. Keep in mind that science is always tentative and can't prove anything. If new evidence appears that shows that certain "designoid objects" were more likely to have evoloved, then the theory would have to be changed. No different than any other science.

Belief in God, is as you put it, a belief. But, Dr. Ken Miller, who is popular around PT, has conceded that ID is testable. I'm not sure, but others far more credible in this field than me do think it is testable. My interest here though is not ID, its to show that the supposed foundation of modern biology, is a weak theory propped up by vague and shifting definitions and some pretty unsavory rhetorical tactics. While Flint makes some good points, I still contend that it is disconcerting that the only clear statements regarding how evolution works H-W, Mendelian Genetics, and the central dogma of biology, don't come close to supporting the more fantastic claims of the evolutionists.

Lenny - We shouldn't confuse this court decision with the merit of the design hypothesis. Although for people that want to see ID go away, the court decision is a big deal.

I have a graduate degree in engineering from Lehigh University, and I've spent quite a bit of time in Texas over the years and really enjoy the city of Austin and its culture.

Over time, he and others may be able to develop a science that can statistically infer that some artifact was indeed designed

Dr. Ken Miller, who is popular around PT, has conceded that ID is testable

My interest here though is not ID, its to show that the supposed foundation of modern biology, is a weak theory propped up by vague and shifting definitions and some pretty unsavory rhetorical tactics

We shouldn't confuse this court decision with the merit of the design hypothesis

oh, and btw, what exactly is the design hypothesis? We've been asking Dembksi, and Nelson, and Behe, and the entire DI for a long time now, and they NEVER have published a scientific hypothesis of ID anywhere.

i suppose you can pull one out of your *ss, er, i mean the ether, yes?

Meyer has some mumblings that I've seen IDers post on the net under the rubric "Meyer's 3-point ID hypothesis." I'd find a paraphrase and post it, but you know exactly what it says. It's laughable.

I think it comes in three points because it's fragile, and you know what they say about "all your eggs in one basket"

Go ahead, Dave. Post it, and we'll crush those eggs.

exactly; you'd think that if the defendants in Kitzmiller wanted to show any real indication that ID had any scientific merit, they would have expounded the scientific merit present in Meyer's "hypothesis"; but no, it just didn't happen that way did it?

no, what happened was Behe, on the stand, admitting that in order to accept ID as a scientific hypothesis, you would have to broaden the definition of science to include astrology as well.

so, Dave, do you think astrology has scientific merit? Propenents have had thousands of years to develop a working and testable hypothesis, but they never bothered. why is that, you suppose?

Dave,

Near as I can tell, you have little interest in understanding how evolution works, and a great deal of interest in convincing yourself that biologists' understandings are weak and inadequate. I seriously doubt that any presentation anyone can make will make the slightest difference in this orientation. You do not WANT biology to be correct; therefore it can't be. After all of everyone's efforts, this initial posture hasn't changed even a little bit.

We've learned here, over time, that anyone willing to learn is able to do so; anyone UNwilling to learn isn't going to.

And I think I'll reiterate what Sir Toejam said. If Ken Miller ever thought ID was testable, this would be news to him. Can you tell us where you found this information? Someone here will be delighted to pass your source on to Ken Miller himself.

And if it does, it must have laws, right?
What are the laws of astrology?

Snark: The customer is always right.

Dave,

You've asked for more information on this topic. You've thrown around some names, ideas, accusations, and then you've asked us to define and "defend" evolution.

Stephen Meyers

Dembski's CSI

Index to Creationist Claims

Evolution defined

Did you notice the irony that the answers to all of these questions you posed are already provided in a convenient form at the links already provided to you? Have you read *any* of the links others have provided to you?

Interestingly, despite all of your skepticism towards evolution, you do not display a similar skepticism towards the vacuous arguments of the ID proponents.

Unlike ID the science of evolution can take years of study to understand fully. If you indeed have a graduate degree in engineering, you have the capacity to learn and understand it. Now the question is "do you have the intellectual integrity to follow through?"

Dave,

Here are a few more links of interest:

Evidence for Evolution

Must Read files

Evolution FAQs

Time for you to GET READING. Let us know if you have any questions *after* you read these links.

Maybe this obsession Dave has with 'laws' is some sort of Christian carryover from the 10 Commandments. You know, one of those 'Evolution-is-just-another-religion' assumptions.

Either way, it bespeaks a near total lack of training in anything that can be called 'science'. I'm learning that this is surprisingly common among engineers.

Hey,

Them's fighting words! I know a lot of engineers that think this thinking is just as sloppy as you do.

what AC means is that if you look at the list of ID supporters, you do find a inordinate number of engineers on THAT list.

that does NOT mean that engineers in general have poor analytical skills.

to generalize such, one would have to have, uh, poor analytical skills...

Them's fighting words! I know a lot of engineers that think this thinking is just as sloppy as you do.

It'll be interesting to see if he's willing to actually read anything

er, make that C'est la vie.

damn my american bastardization of the french language!

damn my american bastardization of the french language!

yeah, that's my problem, i never go far enough... *snicker*

I'm not sure if these could be called "laws" or not, but here's my (amateur) attempt at providing such:

1) Any complex life form came from ancestors, and is functionally very similar to some of its recent ancestors.

2) Small differences can occur between ancestor and descendant, and these can add up over many generations to larger differences.

3) If two life forms have extensive similarities in areas not affecting reproductive success rates (such as DNA sequences in non-coding parts of the genome), this implies those similarities resulted from copying from a common source, which implies a common ancestor.

4) Changes in heritable traits (mutations) increase the amount of variety within species.

5) Varieties less successful than other varieties of the same species in the current environment will decline in number, and be replaced by those others (natural selection). (This of course reduces the amount of variety within the species.)

Henry

Folks - presenting me with a large number of reference sources is appreciated, but you are confusing quantity with quality. And please don't waste my time with talkorigins. (Some of the other references are quite good, and I do read those)

Here is a good essay that details how Mike Behe's comments regarding astrology were mis-characterized.

http://telicthoughts.com/?p=484#more-484

And here is one that supports my comments regarding Ken Miller and the testability of ID. Feel free to ask Ken Miller for clarification, but based upon his "show" the other night, I don't consider Dr. Miller to be much more credible than Dr. Mirecki.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_is_empirica.html#more

In general, discovery.org answers all your questions about ID and presents a testable hypothesis. Here is one supporting essay along those lines:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=546

sad.

you're no scientist Dave.

go preach to someone who cares.

so, when i labeled you a creationist from texas, and you said you weren't, then you say you spent a lot of time in texas, and are a "horns" fan. Now you say there is plenty of evidence for and a scientific hypothesis for ID.

right.

how many sides of your mouth can you talk out of at once?

ever hear the term "projection" before, Dave?

you're guilty of it in spades.

congratulations on being a willfully ignorant discredit to whatever University you may/not have graduated from.

truly pathetic.

do actually have ANY concept of what Ken did?

He actually "invented" plausible scenarios for ID concepts (which, btw, your heroes at the DI fail to do over and over again), in order to even remotely compare them to actual tested hypotheses, and STILL shot every one down, over and over again.

I knew you would mess that up, that's why i asked you to reference it.

ever ask yourself why Dembski, who was invited to debate Miller directly, never bothered to show up?

go ahead, dig up the excuse for us. then i'm sure you spout some drivel about how "scientists didn't show up at kansas", without even bothering to check out the reasons why that were well posted by AAAS.

were ten steps ahead of you, old boy. You see, we've heard all your crapola before. many times. and it sounds no better coming out of the mouth of someone who claims to have an engineering degree as it sounds coming out of the mouth of Pat Robertson.

Here is a good essay that details how Mike Behe's comments regarding astrology were mis-characterized.

my last question for you dave:

If ID has testable scientific hypotheses, testable predictions, and evidence to actually support these things, that would actually make it science.

now dave, for 100 pts. tell me:

why does the DI feel it "isn't ready to be taught as a theory yet in schools"

why did they rush over to Dover to try to get the defendants to change how they word their support of ID?

you do recall how one of the defendants kept messing up even what ID stands for don't you? why do you suppose that is?

awww, why bother, you're so gullible your answer would mean nothing.

like i said, you had your chance to be interesting and blew it.

no cookie for you.

You leveled a number of criticisms, we've only provided the number of references required to address these criticisms, so don't complain about the quantity.

Furthermore, your disdain for both the quantity and quality of information is very telling. The evidence supporting Evolution beats ID on BOTH quantity AND quality.

Next, did you bother to actually READ the information at those links, or do you automatically dismiss the science there because it comes from the "wrong" source? Instead of pre-deciding your answer first and then only reading the information that supports it, why don't you go check the facts first and then make your decision.

Regarding Behe's testimony "mis-characterization", did you actually read Behe's testimony or are you depending upon the DIs propaganda? If you're interested, I'll cut & paste the relevant testimony here tomorrow morning.

Science can show you the wonders around you in our world, but in order to see it, you'll need to open your eyes.

Folks - presenting me with a large number of reference sources is appreciated, but you are confusing quantity with quality. And please don't waste my time with talkorigins. (Some of the other references are quite good, and I do read those)

But, Dr. Ken Miller, who is popular around PT, has conceded that ID is testable.

— Dave

I'm taking bets on whether Dave will want to get the last word in this thread.

any takers?

Dave, as one EE to another, what is your field(s)? This may aid me in crafting a response.

And as a bonus, here's an expanded form of natural selection in an equation format:

Pr(b)>Pr(0)=Pr(n)>Pr(h), Pr(l)=0

where Pr is the probability of an individual's reproductive success, (b) is an individual with a beneficial mutation, (0) is an individual with no mutation, (n) is an individual with a neutral mutation, (h) is an individual with a harmful mutation, and (l) is an individual with a lethal mutation.

Folks - presenting me with a large number of reference sources is appreciated, but you are confusing quantity with quality

Actually, I'm not sure you know what quality is.

And I WILL point you to talk.origins. Go. Read. That has pointers to ORIGINAL papers--you can't get closer to quality than that. Deal with the original papers referenced there (that is, after all, the whole point of that site).

If you WON'T deal with the references in talk.origins, you've basically conceded the argument.

By the way, when I talk about talk.origins, I'm not talking solely about what the site's authors are writing. I'm talking about the evidence and research findings (which are NOT the same as what the researchers write up in their papers and reports). That's a distinct difference that non-scientists don't get...it's the findings, the observations, the expertimental results that are important, and how they are organized into a coherent whole. Too many people focus on the words and ignore the evidence that the words describe and deal with.

We shouldn't confuse this court decision with the merit of the design hypothesis.

Dave, ID had its day in court. It had the opportunity to present any evdience it wanted. it had the opportunity to present all the witnesses and testimony it needed. It had the opportunity to cross-examine all the "evolutionist" witnesses and point out any flaws or errors it found. All ID had to do was convicne one judge, just one judge, that ID had something scientifically useful to say and wasn't just religious apologetics.

ID shot its entire load.

It lost.

Game over.

Get used to it.

(shrug)

Either way, it bespeaks a near total lack of training in anything that can be called 'science'.

— Arden says:

Oh yeah, I forgot Heat Transfer as a separate area of study.

Here is a good essay that details how Mike Behe's comments regarding astrology were mis-characterized.

— Dave

But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

— Mr. Rothschild

Yes, that s correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can t go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

— Michael Behe

In my engineering training I had to cover a very broad range of subjects, but none of the required subjects included any logic or study of the scientific method

Hey, c'mon, this guy is being perfectly reasonable--how can he trust that there's a lot of scientific evidence supporting evolution, when all we've been able to supply him with are references and links to the evidence generated by, um, scientists?

Duh, but scientists are bound to be prejudiced in favor of science, right? Anything they say on the subject is just propaganda or--at most, as LaLaLarry might say--just their opinion.

We ought to know this is so because, like, didn't that cartoonist/would-be-humorist Scott Adams say so, only a few weeks back, on his nascent blog?

Sheesh, what better authority could someone like Dave need, than a nationally-syndicated cartoonist?

How dare we criticize that kind of wilfull ignorance as, um, willful ignorance?

STJ,

My "highest" level physics and chemistry where Relativity & Quantum Mechanics and Quantitative Chemistry respectively. They were 3xx (Jr.) level classes. I took these as electives since they were not required for my degree.

In my major, Aeronautical & Astronautical Engineering, pretty much every technical (non-Math) class we needed after freshman year was provided by the engineering department. So although we took classes in chemistry like and physics like subjects they were provided as "Engineering" classes by the college of engineering and not part of the physics, chemistry or math departments. These classes were designed to teach us what we needed for our advanced engineering classes.

Incidentally the same held true for Math, but that divergence occured after the Jr. level (4xx) which contained Ordinary & Partial Diff Eq. + Complex Variable (i) Calculus. Our final math class (Sr level) was also a class offered by the college of engineering but covered a variety of specialized math subjects pertinent to engineering problems (advanced topics in matrix operations and such).

In general the emphasis in education of engineers is providing a very broad background in a wide range of topics. The role of the engineer is to pull that broad knowledge together to solve specific problems. Therefore, the classes teach the knowledge but do not delve into how that knowledge is developed.

Engineers apply knowledge, they are (typically) not motivated to generate "new" knowledge.

In fact my thesis project involved taking a method of solving certain types of fluid problems, adapting it, and applying it to solve different set of fluid problems it was not originally designed to solve.

The role of the engineer is to pull that broad knowledge together to solve specific problems

In fact my thesis project involved taking a method of solving certain types of fluid problems, adapting it, and applying it to solve different set of fluid problems it was not originally designed to solve

STJ,

Umm, I think you missed the intro of this discussion. Arden claimed engineers were more susceptible the wiles of ID than the typical scientists.

I'm not claiming this is the way it *should* be taught. I'm merely reflecting on my perspective of what *was* taught. Vent your ire elsewhere.

My admission was that despite very extensive coverage of a variety of technical subjects, I don't recall any (required) training in critical thinking or the scientific method. The training was typically of the form "this formula / idea / concept is true, use it to solve this set of problems".

Some of the intro classes did involve how the various ideas were discovered or derived, however, this was the exception not the rule. There's just not much effort to teach logic or critical thinking.

As to how you solve problems, I use a troubleshooting approach that mimics that of a logic tree. However, this technique is not taught.

As to pilots not knowing aeronautical engineering. Well, some of my best friends were aviation majors (pilots in training). They had to take the intro Aero courses with us. But only the intro classes that covered the history of flight and the basic equations of flight.

My comments about the engineering curriculum is that it is packed too full already. Very few students are able to complete it in 4 years. It was *MUCH* harder than any of the science major curricula (chemistry / physics / psychology / computer science) that I had friends or family in. What core content would you cut to provide those classes on critical thinking, logic, or the history of the discovery of all of that material? Would it be OK with you if the people designing your aircraft didn't learn about structures? materials? control theory? design? propulsion? or any of the other necessary content?

Besides, ideally part of going to college is to get a broad education. Although my major did not require it, I did take the opportunity to explore a broad sampling of subjects. I ended up graduating in 4 years but with 5.3 years worth of credit.

My comments about the engineering curriculum is that it is packed too full already. Very few students are able to complete it in 4 years. It was *MUCH* harder than any of the science major curricula (chemistry / physics / psychology / computer science) that I had friends or family in. What core content would you cut to provide those classes on critical thinking, logic, or the history of the discovery of all of that material? Would it be OK with you if the people designing your aircraft didn't learn about structures? materials? control theory? design? propulsion? or any of the other necessary content?

Umm, I think you missed the intro of this discussion. Arden claimed engineers were more susceptible the wiles of ID than the typical scientists.

My comments about the engineering curriculum is that it is packed too full already. Very few students are able to complete it in 4 years. It was *MUCH* harder than any of the science major curricula (chemistry / physics / psychology / computer science) that I had friends or family in. What core content would you cut to provide those classes on critical thinking, logic, or the history of the discovery of all of that material?

Flint I agree. I think STJ has placed too much emphasis on getting this taught as education. He might as well say

I'm shocked they don't teach critical thinking to
...education majors
...accounting majors
...pre-med majors
...vet sciences majors
...pre-law majors
...Starbucks barristas
...Walmart greeters
...burger flippers

Don't they realize that *science* provided them with the tools that they need for their trade? Don't they realize these are valuable skills that would be beneficial to them on a daily basis?

You see STJ, I *do* think they're valuable. I *wish* they did provide some formal education in my major. Although it would be beneficial to most people to learn this material it just isn't necessary for them to know on a daily basis.

Furthermore I didn't *need* it to do my job. In fact I needed it less than all/most of the other technical subjects I took towards my major. I can't think of anything they should have replaced with it AND I don't think I could have finished my major in 4 years if it had been added.

I personally did take 2 courses in logic. I also took many (~25 quarter hours) of unnecessary science credits (including chemistry, physics, geology, & geophysics). Just remember they were NOT required, I took them because I like science and the subject matter interested me.

jim:

Interestingly enough, I've learned on the After the Bar Closes forum that Sir Toejam is really no different from those he criticizes. He dismisses as ignorant those who know a lot less than he does about his field; he dismisses as incoherent those who know a lot MORE than he does about THEIR field. Outside his specialty, STJ relies on Belief, and defends it the same way any creationist does - with misrepresentation, dismissal, insult, silly claims, the whole nine yards.

So that's what motivated my post. Ignorance is a policy choice. It's not a matter of what topics were covered in courses required by the institution granting a degree; it's a willingness to listen to those whose knowledge trumps your emotional needs. If ignorance is *required* to support those emotional needs, you can defend it pretty easily. Creationists are experts at this. I was surprised to learn that Sir Toejam used creationist tactics to defend his emotional requirements, rather than recognize that they even WERE emotional.

But this shouldn't be much of a surprise. The creationists have whole books full of quotes of pronouncements from Nobel prize winners pontificating on fields well outside their narrow specialties. Scientists NEVER seem to recognize that expertise in the area of their specialty does NOT imply expertise in areas about which they know nothing. To them, they are EXPERTS.

Personally, I think that if you are open to the idea, you can learn it. If you are not, you can (as Wells and Wise) get a PhD without ever grasping the essence of it. I strongly doubt that a willingness to consider different ideas comes from formal education, nor that any amount of formal education leads to more willingness to consider different ideas. It's a character trait.

flint:

Bringing in discussions from out of topic threads is pretty underhanded tactics, to say the least.

are you SURE that's the way you want to play this?

do you want me to go through all of your posts ever made on pt and challenge all of your erroneous conclusions and fallacies?

I kept my discussions of economics confined to that thread. I'm fast losing respect for you as you fail to do the same.

Jim:

you are still quite mistaken in your thinking that you were never taught the scientific method.

defacto, you WERE taught the scientific method when you studied physics, and chemistry, and yes, even mathematics.

whether or not you acknowledge remembering the formal definitions of terms, you literally could not have proceeded in any experimental field of science without it.

my shock is not that you weren't taught the scientific method, but that you apparently fail to recognize that you were.

like i said, go talk to one of your professors and ask them if THEY think you ever learned the scientific method as an engineering student.

I doubt they would agree with your assessment.

the thought processes that lead to thinking that knowledge of the foundations of science is not necessary to do science eventually becomes the the same as those who no longer think science is necessary at all to progress.

It's a slippery slope.

do you want me to go through all of your posts ever made on pt and challenge all of your erroneous conclusions and fallacies?

I kept my discussions of economics confined to that thread. I'm fast losing respect for you as you fail to do the same.

Sarcasm off, I agree with you, engineers are taught to apply accepted methods, techniques, and principles to solve problems. Engineers, by implication, are taught to trust that the theoreticians know their jobs, know what they're talking about, and know that their hypotheses have passed appropriate tests. Advanced engineering degress require that one demonstrate the ability to apply known principles to novel problems - NOT to derive new principles.

Well, having taken several years of science and engineering courses at college, I can say that my experience was more like this than anything else. There is a bit of lip service paid to scientific methodology, but the first time I really UNDERSTOOD it was when I was doing graduate studies, and trying to forge a research program for myself.

I think the Salem Hypothesis is a lot closer to reality than some people would like to think.

engineers are taught to apply accepted methods, techniques, and principles to solve problems

Scientists NEVER seem to recognize that expertise in the area of their specialty does NOT imply expertise in areas about which they know nothing. To them, they are EXPERTS.

and flint qualifies himself as an "expert" in economics because he read a few books.

when vehemently challenged on some of his postulations, he decides he needs to find emotional support by dragging the arguments from one thread into another.

so be it.

Interestingly enough, I was required to take a critical thinking course as an engineering undergrad. The course was called Creative Problem Solving, and I use the concepts taught in that course more than any other individual engineering course I took. Frankly, it was my favorite course, and I think it would translate into a high school course quite easily.

The engineering courses I took were heavily based on the scientific method. In large part, it was because of the high emphasis on lab-based learning. The lectures may have taught us the science that brought us the concepts, but the in the labs, welearned the scientific method and the critical thinking skills needed to be a top engineer. Every class had a lab; one quarter, I was required to spend a minimum of 21 hours a week in lab!

And it was the skills that I earned from that grueling lab schedule that make me such a valuable asset to my company. One of our clients is the public electric utility for one of the ten largest cities in the US. The day after the 4th of July weekend, I received an urgent call: the system I had recently done some work on was malfunctioning, and I had 6 hours to find and fix the problem or they wouldn't be able to provide enough power to the city. Within two hours, I had isolated the problem and was able to offer 3 courses of action, including an emergency bypass that could be instituted with a single wire and one minute of labor. With well over 3 hours left, that enabled us to examine the components without fear of being forced to shut down, and after an hour of testing discovered the cause of the problem (the holiday crew had shut off the wrong valve!) But if I hadn't taken all those labs and thus had ingrained in my brain an efficient method of analyzing data, we would not have been able to figure out what had happened in time.

Sure you can be an engineer without a strong grounding in the scientific method. But you can't be the kind of engineer I am.

you could substitute chemist, biologist, or physicist for engineer here and still be correct.

those accepted methods and techniques and principles don't exist apart from the methods, techniques, and principles that created them.

If you even took 1 physics class, you ended up learning the scientific method, whether it was presented formally as such or not.

Hrm. Didn't take a lot of classes with premeds, did you?

I will respectfully disagree. Does the phrase "know the words, but not the music" mean anything to you?

argy stokes:

You're correct, and my apologies. SOME scientists consider themselves generic experts (see Sir Toejam for example) but others are very careful to recognize that they do not know what they do not know.

It seems that engineering degrees offer amazingly wildly different curricula. Some programs seem to insist on extensive "philosoph of science" background material, some offer it as an elective, some omit it altogther.

Sir Toejam:

I said I'd studied the subject. I did. You said you did NOT study the subject. I admit I have NOT studied anything in YOUR specialty. Now you propose to demonstrate that everything I post is incorrect in EVERY area, your own personal knowlege notwithstanding. You're right in YOUR field, you're right in MY field, you're right in YOUR profession, you're right in MY profession, you're always right. Good for you. Must be nice.

I hope while you're at it you show how much righter you are than jim, kevin, gwangun, and everyone else who has direct experience you lack (but which doesn't slow you down any more than any other creationist). I'm sure that will make you feel really really good.

Jerk.

Does anybody else besides me think that everybody is being awfully hard on Dave? It doesn't't matter if he's trolling or not, it's possible to answer his questions and point out some problems with his premises---which others who are lurking may share---without being abusive (as Flint was able to do pretty thoroughly).

— MrDarwin

Folks - presenting me with a large number of reference sources is appreciated, but you are confusing quantity with quality. And please don't waste my time with talkorigins. (Some of the other references are quite good, and I do read those)

Hadn't read to the end when added previous post. Might still have some relevance. What do you think, Sir T?

All right, I confess, there ARE some good materials at talkorigins. But, talkorigins is at its heart propaganda, and very intolerant to dissent. I prefer to support web sites that are more objective and perhaps humble in their advocacy or presentation. Brow beating is brow beating whether it comes from an religious zeolot or an evolutionary zeolot. The religious zeolot says if I don't believe, I'm going to burn in hell. The evolutionary zeolot says if I don't believe, I'm threatening the future of society and that I'm evil.

You may have noticed, I'm not a big fan of totalitarian methods, and that's essentially what you'll find at talkorigins and to some extent, PT.

I'm still interested in discovering the laws or postulates of evolution, particularly those that spell out the rate at which genetic mutations spread throughout a population. Then, i'd like to understand specific sequences of mutations that science has either reverse engineered or replicated in the lab that demonstrate the creative power of RMNS, as well as the time required for significant biological change to occur and spread. You'd think that would be Evo101, but for some reason, its just not covered. I found some good information on this in a book by Lee Spetner, "Not By Chance."

Scientists NEVER seem to recognize that expertise in the area of their specialty does NOT imply expertise in areas about which they know nothing. To them, they are EXPERTS.

STJ,

I never said that I had never been taught (or didn't understand) the scientific method. I said it was not part of my engineering curriculum.

In fact, I had a wonderful AP chem teacher in high school. This was a guy that earned a BS & MS in chemistry, went and worked in industry for over a decade, and decided he didn't like it. So he went back for his secondary education degree and taught HS chemistry.

2 of my siblings went into chemistry because of him. I personally took lots of unnecessary college level chemistry because of how much he influenced me.

I'd rank him as #2 of my all time favorite teachers (reserving #1 for a college professor I had).

That sort of teacher is something that every child should get at least once during their school years. If more students did get teachers like him, I can guarantee more kids would go into the sciences!

Anyway, he spent a great deal of effort teaching us not only chemistry but a great deal of the underpinnings of science in general, including the scientific method.

However, the only class I can think of that included any indirect teaching of critical thinking was my HS senior government class. We held 2 mock trials. In the first (which was held in our classroom and various students performed the different roles in a trial), I performed as an attorney. That was an excellent exercise in critical thinking.

The second mock trial we participated in was held by the University of Dayton Law School. We served as jurors for their mock trial. 3rd year law students served as attorneys, a real attorney served as a judge. We even got to use a real courtroom. That was a real cool experience!

IMO the subject most likely to teach critical thinking thought process would be debate. I never took debate, but now wish that I had.

******************

FYI, perhaps a lot of the disagreement here comes from using the same words but meaning different things.

For instance, when I say "critical thinking" I am not referring to problem solving capabilities. I am specifically referring to the capacity of dissecting what's being said/written for it's true content (if any) and comparing that content to other pieces of information. Then if correlated positively, using that information to help build a bigger picture. If correlated negatively, trying to unravel what was said for other clues towards what else might be false or what the motives of the speaker/writer were.

In essence, my "critical thinking" would be highly valuable in for instance a debate or a trial.

When I say we didn't learn "the scientific method", I'm saying that we did *NOT* learn troubleshooting skills. Tests, quizzes, & homework were nearly always basic application of the materials discussed in classes. We had very few labs. The best exposure I got to this was in our NASA sponsored design projects in which we solved a variety of problems. However, the problems we solved were not typically of the "troubleshooting" variety.

A good example of the above was I was tasked to design tubing to get viscous liquid metal from a furnace to a piezoelectric nozzle with out overloading the piston that pushed it out of the furnace (this was to be an experiment carried on the space shuttle). I struggled with this problem for weeks because although I had access to all of the formulas required to figure out how much back pressure would be generated for a certain diameter, length, and bend of tubing AND I had access to the information about the pressure the piston could exert, I did not have the ability to optimize the equations to figure out the minimum tubing requirements.

My final solution was I worked the problem backwards. I first figured out the maximum bend curvature & diameter and minimum length of tubing I could accommodate in the space provided and then see if the resultant back pressure was low enough for the piston. Turns out it was. So I submitted this design. Not the most elegant approach to the solution BUT it was very practical.

I also took both introduction to logic and symbolic logic. The latter was very useful for both developing the system of problem solving that I use now (typically a binary tree approach) but is somewhat useful in analyzing statements for logical inconsistencies. In general the logic that I had doesn't help me as much as it should with the spoken word but it helps a lot in other situations.

Dave,

I'm a Rocket Scientist but not a biologist, say take what I say on this with a hunk of salt.

Regarding the reconstruction of mutations. Look at TalkOrigins for a paper on the gene mutations involved in the making of vitamin C in humans and chimps.

Note, I don't think scientists are at the point of "making" new mutations intentionally. Although we can induce mutations, it's more random that "engineering".

Also note, I don't think this is on TalkOrigins, but I remember reading a paper about "designing" a bacterium to have the fewest number of genes possible. Others here could probably discuss this research in some detail.

Regarding TalkOrigins being propaganda...
If you mean that in the sense that it's supposed to be a tool used by scientists to sway public opinion, then yes you're right.

If you mean that they'll say anything in order to sway public opinion whether it's right or not, then no you're wrong.

As far as my knowledge goes, everything I've seen at TalkOrigins is TRUE. If you find errors, please provide the admins there with feedback pointing it out with references to back your claim. I have *seen* them make corrections when errors have been pointed out. Be aware, that using quotes from Dembski, Behe, Johnson, et al saying that something is wrong at TalkOrigins just won't cut it. You'll have to find primary resources that rebate the information there.

err, change "that rebate the information there" to "with the correct information".

I have no f**king idea where that phrase came from...