An ever-deepening Egnorance

I make a "20 post" comment on TO once in a while. It is just in reference to the stuborness of some posters where they are willing to bash their heads against the wall for entire threads, just because they can't admit that they were wrong on a stupid point. It is a strange pathology.

I wonder if Egnor is going to be allowed to go 20 posts on the Discovery Institute's web site. I wonder if even his fellow IDiots can convince the guy to move on or just shut him off before he makes them look too stupid.

before he makes them look too stupid.

— Ron Okimoto

Fortunately, this battle is almost over. Dr Egnor completely concedes that the theory of evolution explains bacterial resistance.

"Microbiology tells us that bacterial populations are heterogeneous. Individual bacteria differ from one another."

So far so good. And let's add that due to imperfect genetic replication, heterogenaiety will be introduced every time bacterial cells reproduce (and not only then, for that matter).

I'm sure Dr Egnor agrees with this clarification of his point. It would be absurd, and unexpected, for him to argue that bacterial reproduction is perfect, and that every unique bacterial genome was created by magic.

"Molecular biology tells us that some bacteria have molecular mechanisms by which they can survive antibiotics. Molecular genetics tells us how these resistance mechanisms are passed to other bacteria and through generations of bacteria. Pharmacology helps us design new antibiotics that circumvent the bacterial defenses."

Correct again.

"What does Darwinism add to the sciences of microbiology, molecular biology, molecular genetics, and pharmacology? Darwinism tells us that antibiotic-resistant bacteria survive exposure to antibiotics because of natural selection. That is, bacteria survive antibiotics that they'r e not sensitive to, so non-killed bacteria will eventually outnumber killed bacteria. That's it."

Here we have a semantic issue. Dr Egnor uses the term "Darwinism", a term I never use, in an eccentric way. He uses it to refer to natural selection due to selective resistance to an environmental toxin (from the bacterial perspective). That's just a single, dramatic example of natural selection. If there were no antibiotics, and no "premature" bacterial deaths, but bacteria with a particular trait merely reproduced a bit faster, that, too would be an example of natural selection.

But putting the issue of "Darwinism" aside, natural selection is one component of the theory of evolution - the other major component being genetic heterogenaiety of offspring relative to parents, as Dr Egnor discussed above.

Others may nitpick, but in fact, Dr Egnor, you have correctly described exactly how the theory of evolution explains bacterial resistance to antibiotics. And not only does it explain it, it helps us to predict what type of resistance may arise, and what strategies may best head off resistance!

The "intelligent design" explanation, which Dr Egnor makes no mention of, would be that a "designer" magically creates resistant bacteria.

The "intelligent design" explanation, which Dr Egnor makes no mention of, would be that a "designer" magically creates resistant bacteria.

...and the AIDS virus.

Bacterial infections (such as the one that is currently raging in what remains of my top left wisdom tooth) are not created by an individual bacterium. They are created by a population of bacteria.

Chromosomal mutations alone cannot account for the rapid emergence and spread of antibiotic resistance. It has been established that plasmids and transposons are particularly important in the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Plasmid- or transposon-mediated resistance provides the bacteria with pre-evolved genes refined to express high-level resistance. In particular, transposons can transfer these resistance determinants in diverse bacterial species, and nature provides in humans and animals large intestinal reservoirs in which such communications are facilitated.

You are not trying to understand what Egnor is saying. He gets it that some bacteria are able to survive an antibiotic, that all but the resistant bacteria will die, and that the population will contain only resistant bacteria. He thinks this is obvious, a tautology, and he thinks Darwinism adds nothing to our understanding of how or why some bacteria become resistant.

We know that popuations of bacteria (and organisms in general) can sometimes adapt to a changing environment. We know that natural selection must be true, because it is a tautology. The only thing Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism, if you prefer) adds is the hypothesis that genetic variations are accidents, that they are not in any way a response to the environmental changes.

Egnor is saying that we do not need that hypothesis to help us understand how bacteria adapt to antibiotics. We know that they do, we do not know if the Darwinist explanation is correct, and our approach to antibiotics would not be influenced one way or the other.

Let's say we found out the Darwnist hypothesis were correct and the variations are entirely accidental -- how would that change our approach to treating infections?

Egnor is saying Darwinism is irrelevant to the problem. But you are not getting what he is saying.

Resistance is rarely a simple boolean phenotype. It is often the case that in a population there are different resistance or tolerance phenotypes, each corresponding to a different genotype. These can be different alleles of the same gene or different genes. It is the later that Egnor really fails to understand when making his essentialist argument.

It is not simply that resistant bacteria will become more numerous, but that two different types of resistant bacteria can swap DNA and produce completely resistant bacteria, with a novel phenotype. The first types can be killed if you use enough of a drug. The latter type are completely immune from the drug.

Using antibiotics recklessly, not only encourages resistant bacteria to become more common---which means that the population evolves---but it also encourages the evolution of novel, super-resistant bacteria.

Evolutionary biology not only explains the phenomenon of resistant bacteria, but it also gives scientists and doctors tools to study resistance.

Despite Dr. Egnor's egnorance, the fact is that before Darwin and evolutionary biology came onto the scene, scientists and doctors did not see variation as being important to biological populations. To them variations were rare and due to errors in the essential, God-given type of the species. Darwin changed all that by successfully arguing that variation was not only ubiquitous, but also the essential feature of populations. Variation was no longer ignored as an error of creation, but seen as the raw material for evolution.

If it wasn't for the success of Darwin and other evolutionary biologists in revolutionizing the way scientists thought about biology, Egnor would not be here talking about how it is "obvious" that there is variation in resistance in bacteria.

And finally, 1+1=2 is a tautology; that doesn't make it wrong or useless in medicine.

What does Darwinism add to the sciences of microbiology, molecular biology, molecular genetics, and pharmacology?

The only thing Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism, if you prefer) adds is the hypothesis that genetic variations are accidents, that they are not in any way a response to the environmental changes.

No, Skippy, that's NOT what the theory of evolution (which is what biology and medicine are using) contributes to medicine. Once again, you pretend to know everything, and show you know nothing.

Since you're not willing to engage with what we're REALLY saying, "real"pc, why should we waste our time engaging with you? Stick your head as far up your bum as you want; we're not following you there -- we already know what's up there, and we have no need of it.

You are not trying to understand what Egnor is saying. He gets it that some bacteria are able to survive an antibiotic, that all but the resistant bacteria will die, and that the population will contain only resistant bacteria. He thinks this is obvious, a tautology, and he thinks Darwinism adds nothing to our understanding of how or why some bacteria become resistant.

We know that popuations of bacteria (and organisms in general) can sometimes adapt to a changing environment. We know that natural selection must be true, because it is a tautology.

The only thing Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism, if you prefer)

adds is the hypothesis that genetic variations are accidents, that they are not in any way a response to the environmental changes.

Egnor is saying that we do not need that hypothesis to help us understand how bacteria adapt to antibiotics.

We know that they do, we do not know if the Darwinist explanation is correct,

and our approach to antibiotics would not be influenced one way or the other.

Let's say we found out the Darwnist hypothesis were correct and the variations are entirely accidental --- how would that change our approach to treating infections?

Egnor is saying Darwinism is irrelevant to the problem. But you are not getting what he is saying.

Let's put the Egnorance into another form:

Evolution by natural selection is simply reality, hence we don't need Darwinism.

And obviously we don't need "Darwinism", let's just use what we know about evolution to research and teach according to the evolutionary reality that we know exists.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

...and our approach to antibiotics would not be influenced one way or the other.

And my approach to flying to London is not influenced by heliocentrism one way or the other. So what?

realpc's assertion is as illogical and irrelevant as it is false. The ID crowd must be getting desperate if they're resorting to word-games like this. Are they trying to make Behe, Dembski, et al sound sensible by comparison?

Perhaps the "Wedge" Strategy has been replaced by the "Stop Making Fun Of Us Or We'll Really Give You Something To Make Fun Of" Strategy?

Or maybe it's the "Act Real Stoopid To Give The Darwinists A False Sense Of Confidence" Strategy?

Realpc -

"The only thing Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism, if you prefer) adds is the hypothesis that genetic variations are accidents, that they are not in any way a response to the environmental changes."

Others have pointed out that this is an oversimplification and misuse of the term "Darwinism", which I think is an inappropriate term anyway.

But let's look at what YOU are really trying to say.

You're clearly saying that genetic variations are NOT "accidents". And we all know what you mean.

You mean that the "designer" magically created bacterial antibiotic resistance genes, don't you? Come out and admit it instead of hiding behind insinuations and hints.

I think that the genetic sequences that underly antibiotic resistance arose naturally. They probably were the results of a genetic variations between "parent" and "offspring" genomes originally, which were "random" in the sense that no designing intelligence was scheming "I'll insert a mutation here to really protect these bacteria against future antibiotics".

Being "random" in this sense doesn't mean that certain parts of the genome aren't more prone to imperfect replication than others, nor that a mutation in a gene related to DNA repair might not accelerate the accumulation or other mutations; those things happen, and more complexities as well. But the original genetic variation events were random in the sense of being natural and unplanned.

They were probably selected for to some degree in past generations because fungi and in fact other bacterial species can naturally release antibiotics (that's where we get many of our human antibiotics from). But they were maintained only at a low level in populations, partly because maintaining resistance genes costs energy. But when you hit the bacteria with chemical antibiotics, then resistance is really selected for.

That's how I see it. I've simplified, I suppose, but at any rate, I see it as entirely natural. No need to blame "the designer" or anybody else.

But you think I'm wrong. You think that the "designer" reached in with his magic fingers and deliberately gave bacteria resistance genes, don't you???? The question is, do you have the guts to admit that this is what you think, or at least what you constantly imply?

Just one more Egnorant variation on a theme:

Since Darwin was actually correct about the consequences of natural selection, why should we teach physicians and others the present and past effects of natural selection?

Indeed, it is time to quit teaching anything that is borne out by reality. Here comes ID!

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

Egnor is saying Darwinism is irrelevant to the problem. But you are not getting what he is saying.

— realpc

Somehow I think that Egnor is going to wear thin even with the IDiots pretty soon. He's playing semantic games on a level that even most of them are intelligent enough to avoid.

— Glen Davidson

The same words are being used with different meanings, and that is why no one here understands what Egnor is saying. When I try to explain it, everyone deliberately changes the meanings of the words.

Egnor is talking about the neo-Darwnist theory (NOT Darwin's opinion) which says genetic variations in individual organisms are accidental.

Egnor is talking about the adaptation (NOT evolution) of bacteria.

He agrees that bacteria adapt to antibiotics, and would never recommend the careless overuse of antibiotics.

He agrees that evolution has occurred and that species have common ancestors.

He agrees that genetic variation and natural selection occur.

The only thing he questions is the neo-Darwinist assertion that genetic variations in individual organisms are accidental.

We are not talkiing about what Darwin said about variations. We know that Lamarckianism had not been discarded in Darwin's time. We know that Darwin was far more open-minded than current neo-Darwinists.

What no one knows is whether genetic variations in individual organisms are always accidental, never a response to environmental changes. ID says they are not always accidental, although it does not pretend to know what causes them.

The only difference between neo-Darwinism and ID is the question of whether genetic variations in individual organisms are always accidental.

ID says nothing about creator gods. It only claims that something more is involved than accident plus selection.

The same words are being used with different meanings, and that is why no one here understands what Egnor is saying. When I try to explain it, everyone deliberately changes the meanings of the words.

Given that many of the people here are experts in the field that's being talked about....perhaps the problem isn't with the people here...it's with you and Egnor.

realpc wrote:
"He gets it that some bacteria are able to survive an antibiotic, that all but the resistant bacteria will die, and that the population will contain only resistant bacteria."

Then Egnor is an idiot. Most antibiotics only kill bacteria that are actively dividing. It's only going to change the ratio of bacteria. It's not binary.

Egnor is talking about the neo-Darwnist theory (NOT Darwin's opinion) which says genetic variations in individual organisms are accidental.

— realpc

What no one knows is whether genetic variations in individual organisms are always accidental, never a response to environmental changes. ID says they are not always accidental, although it does not pretend to know what causes them. The only difference between neo-Darwinism and ID is the question of whether genetic variations in individual organisms are always accidental.

Egnor is talking about the adaptation (NOT evolution) of bacteria.

Same thing, Skippy.

He agrees that bacteria adapt to antibiotics, and would never recommend the careless overuse of antibiotics.

Because they EVOLVE. This is the sort of thing the theory of evolution PREDICTS.

He agrees that evolution has occurred and that species have common ancestors.

Just like any other IDiot ends up doing when he can't run away or deny the obvious.

He agrees that genetic variation and natural selection occur.

That's evolution; I thought you just said he wasn't talking about evolution. Can't you keep your lies straight even within a single post?

The only thing he questions is the neo-Darwinist assertion that genetic variations in individual organisms are accidental.

You're lying again: if you actually read and understood the essays in question, you would know that's not what he's been saying, and it's not the reason we're all calling him either an IDiot or a liar.

ID says nothing about creator gods. It only claims that something more is involved than accident plus selection.

"Something" like what? Space aliens? Someone who isn't called "God" but just happens to have the same skill-set? Does ID prove the action of this unspecified "something?"

Your IDiot index-cards are more stale than Ronald Reagan's. Go back to bed.

When I try to explain it, everyone deliberately changes the meanings of the words.

Egnor is talking about the neo-Darwnist theory (NOT Darwin's opinion) which says genetic variations in individual organisms are accidental.

Egnor is talking about the adaptation (NOT evolution) of bacteria.

He agrees that bacteria adapt to antibiotics, and would never recommend the careless overuse of antibiotics.

He agrees that evolution has occurred and that species have common ancestors.

He agrees that genetic variation and natural selection occur.

The only thing he questions is the neo-Darwinist assertion that genetic variations in individual organisms are accidental.

We are not talkiing about what Darwin said about variations.

We know that Lamarckianism had not been discarded in Darwin's time.

We know that Darwin was far more open-minded than current neo-Darwinists.

What no one knows is whether genetic variations in individual organisms are always accidental, never a response to environmental changes.

ID says they are not always accidental, although it does not pretend to know what causes them.

The only difference between neo-Darwinism and ID is the question of whether genetic variations in individual organisms are always accidental.

ID says nothing about creator gods.

It only claims that something more is involved than accident plus selection.

Realpc -

"What no one knows is whether genetic variations in individual organisms are always accidental, never a response to environmental changes. ID says they are not always accidental, although it does not pretend to know what causes them.

The only difference between neo-Darwinism and ID is the question of whether genetic variations in individual organisms are always accidental."

First of all, not true. There were two central claims to ID -one, that we could tell that all living organisms were deliberately "designed" just by looking at them, and making an anology to human artifacts like sandcastles or watches. And two, that certain aspects of living organisms, such as the bacterial flagellum or the blood clotting system could not have come into existence except by supernatural design. You'd like to retreat from those specious claims now that they've been publicly ridiculed so extensively, and I don't blame you, but those were the original claims of ID. And this succinct summary accurately captures millions of pages of blather.

You dodged my question, so I'll repeat it (and repeat it and repeat it and repeat it and repeat it if need be).

You mean that the "designer" magically created bacterial antibiotic resistance genes, don't you?

The original mutations that led to antibiotic resistance genes had to be random with respect to conscious planning or intelligent intentions - "ACCIDENTAL", if you must - or else some sort of intelligence had to create them deliberately. There are no other logical choices. So which is it?

You mean that the "designer" magically created bacterial antibiotic resistance genes, don't you?

Let's say we found out the Darwnist hypothesis were correct and the variations are entirely accidental --- how would that change our approach to treating infections?

realpc said:

"Egnor is saying that we do not need that hypothesis to help us understand how bacteria adapt to antibiotics. We know that they do, we do not know if the Darwinist explanation is correct, and our approach to antibiotics would not be influenced one way or the other.

Let's say we found out the Darwnist hypothesis were correct and the variations are entirely accidental --- how would that change our approach to treating infections?"

On another thread I asked realpc to provide some evidence for the assertation that "variations" are not "entirely accidental" he ran away without answering. I asked him to propose a specific mechanism by which beneficial mutations could be preferentially "created" and he ran away without asnswering. Now he wants to know how this knowledge wuld "change our approach to treating infections"? Are you serious? How would knowing the source of mutations, their relative and absolute probabilities affect our plans for antibiotic treatment and/or vaccine strategies? If you can't figure that out I probably won't be able to help you much. I already pointed out a reference that shows how this data can be used to predict emerging disease strains ahead of time, (Genetics 160:823-832 2002). Can you refute the conclusions of this paper? Can you show how this is not important? And don't foprget that this is only one five yeasr old reference. There is an entire literature on this subject that you are completely ingoring. I for one will ignore anything further you have to say on the subject until you answer my questions. I suggest others do the same. (PS I am not Lenny, just an admirer).

As I pointed out a few days ago, neither "Darwinism" nor "neo-Darwinism" says anything about whether or not genetic variations are "accidental" or "random." That part comes from our understanding of molecular genetics.

The modern evolutionary synthesis (often referred to simply as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis, the evolutionary synthesis, neo-Darwinian synthesis or neo-Darwinism), generally denotes the integration of Charles Darwin's theory of the evolution of species by natural selection, Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics as the basis for biological inheritance, random genetic mutation as the source of variation, and mathematical population genetics. [bolding added]

"Neo-Darwinism" does not have an established scientific meaning. It is rarely used, and when it is, different authors have used it in different ways to derisively describe opponents. Usually, it is in the following context: neo-Darwinists like X believe that evolution is Y, yet we know that A, B, and C is involved in evolution.

Typically, "neo-Darwinism" is used to label the straw idea that selection is the only evolutionary force, and genes are the units of evolution. However, not a single evolutionary biologist, now or in the past, actually was a "neo-Darwinist". Things like drift, migration, and inbreeding were all part of the modern synthesis of evolution and genetics.

random genetic mutation as the source of variation

Right, this is the only thing ID theory objects to. Both sides in the controversy could easily reach a compromise position. ID does not deny that there are random genetic mutations. It just says that something more seems to be required.

One test would be exposing bacteria to antibiotics and checking whether mutations that might be useful to the bacteria increase or not. If the frequencies of various types of mutations are the same, regardless of the environment, that would lend some support to the hypothesis that mutations are random.

I think one of the big issues here, as exemplified by realpc as well as the ID folks is a fundamental misunderstanding of the word random as it applies to statistics and in this particular case to Evolution, where mutations are quasi-random for various reasons that would be too lengthy to go into here. Mutations in essence follow probabilistic distributions which is confounded by the fact that molecular mechanisms that tie into this (the error checking and repair machinery for instance) are also under evolutionary pressure. There is a rather significant body of work that has shown that the rate of allowed substitution is under evolutionary pressure and can change as those pressures change.

IIRC during times of stress the mutation rate of many organisms (probably this has mostly been shown in bacteria) will often increase. Which makes sense, for the vast majority of organisms on this planet stress periods are usually times of low nutrient intake, etc. Error checking and repair of DNA takes a significant amount of energy. When energy goes down cellular processes suffer. There is no intelligence behind it or conscious will to change and adapt, but an emergent property of the fine chemical and molecular balancing acts going on in the cell is that these stress periods may result in a higher number of mutations in a population which will in turn provide variation within the population. Random doesn't quite mean what the ID proponents make it out to seem and it most definitely is not equal to the definition of random that the lay person uses.

I'll say it again.

When evolutionary biologists talk about "random" mutations, we are saying that the mutations are random with respect to the needs of the organisms.

I'll say it again. When evolutionary biologists talk about "random" mutations, we are saying that the mutations are random with respect to the needs of the organisms.

— Reed A. Cartwright

Realpc -

I can't figure out whether you're responding to my posts or not. And you still seem to be hinting and insinuating. Perhaps I'm a bit simple-minded, but could you please say clarify?

"ID does not deny that there are random genetic mutations. It just says that something more seems to be required."

What do you mean by "something more"?

The "I" in "ID" stands for "intelligent". Some entity with "intelligence" deliberately designed the mutations, that's certainly the clear implication of the term "intelligent design"!

"One test would be exposing bacteria to antibiotics and checking whether mutations that might be useful to the bacteria increase or not. If the frequencies of various types of mutations are the same, regardless of the environment, that would lend some support to the hypothesis that mutations are random."

Others will pick this apart for its lack of detail, but in fact, this is fundamentally correct, with some caveats, and of course, this has been thought of! Experiments very similar to what you suggest have been done, and in fact, are even routinely done by students as "lab session" experiments.

Caveat - different types of environmental mutagens cause different types of mutations for physical and chemical reasons, so we wouldn't expect the "frequencies of various types of mutations" to be the same in every environment. Also, even if we saw "favorable" mutations at an unexpectedly high frequency, it wouldn't prove magic - but the opposite outcome sure argues strongly against magic.

And massive evidence supports the fact, yes, fact, that mutations occuring at random (in the sense, and only in the sense, of being unplanned, not consciously guided, and consistent with the known "laws" of physics and chemistry) underly bacterial antibiotic resistance, and a whole host of other bacterial traits.

So I repeat one final time...

"You mean that the "designer" magically created bacterial antibiotic resistance genes, don't you?"

Please copy and paste the question above your answer so I can understand whether you're addressing it or not.

If you don't mean this, then please say how you think the resistance genes came into being.

Please don't be vague. Don't talk about "something more". They are either the result of unplanned natural processes ("accidental" if you will, in the sense of being unplanned), or someone deliberately planned and implemented them with foresight, apparently by magic.

Both sides in the controversy could easily reach a compromise position.

Fact does not "compromise" with fiction. Truth does not "compromise" with lies. When faced with a question of fact, we do not say "Let's compromise -- it's true AND it's false." And the ID political movement exists solely because the religio-political activists who created it refuse to accept a compromise between observable reality and their ignorant religious doctrine.

Reasonable people have already reached a compromise: we adjust our religious opinions to fit the objective reality we observe. IDers like yourself refuse to accept this compromise.

ID does not deny that there are random genetic mutations. It just says that something more seems to be required.

ID refuses even to define, in any concrete way, what that "something" is, let alone prove that "something" has any specific effect on life on Earth. Which means that beneath all the hand-waving, goalpost-moving, and tiresome semantic fog-machines, ID is "nothing."

Real science is "something," ID is "nothing." And there can be no compromise -- why should I trade half of something for half of nothing?

Realpc -

For your benefit -

"When evolutionary biologists talk about "random" mutations, we are saying that the mutations are random with respect to the needs of the organisms."

Exactly. This is another way of saying what I have said about mutations. They are random in the sense of being individually unplanned, not consciously designed, not needing to be explained as the deliberate effect of the interfering supernatural intelligence. This is essentially the same thing as saying that they are random with respect to the "needs" of the organism.

In many other ways they could be said to be "non-random" for a variety of natural physical, chemical, and biological reasons.

I think that bacterial antibiotic resistance genes ORIGINALLY came into being due to random genetic variation.

The alternate explanation is that a supernatural intelligence created them deliberately, and that is certainly the implication of the term "intelligent design".

I guess I just have to repeat myself one more time.

"You mean that the "designer" magically created bacterial antibiotic resistance genes, don't you?"

If you want me to stop repeating myself, just answer the question. And cut and paste the question, so I can understand that you're addressing it.

Egnor is talking about the adaptation (NOT evolution) of bacteria.

Harold,

It is no use asking realpc to answer questions. He never will. When we point out that the studies on which our conclusions are based have already been done, he just asks why we don't do the studies! Asking for evidence from someone who denies the value of evidence is counter productive. You can ask all you want but I have asked all I intend to.

"You mean that the "designer" magically created bacterial antibiotic resistance genes, don't you?"

realpc has a screw loose.

I believe in something like Bergson's "creative evolution."

it will become increasingly evident that life is a natural product of the universe

random genetic mutation as the source of variation Right, this is the only thing ID theory objects to.

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. emphasis mine.

One test would be exposing bacteria to antibiotics and checking whether mutations that might be useful to the bacteria increase or not. If the frequencies of various types of mutations are the same, regardless of the environment, that would lend some support to the hypothesis that mutations are random.

This particular argument should be fairly easy to test - it would take a bit of money, but not an unreasonable amount. All that they would need to do is take a line of bacteria with a known DNA sequence for a particular gene, place the line into a set of environmental conditions where specific changes in that gene would be favored, do a huge amount of sequencing (making sure to sequence non-survivors as well as survivors), analyze the mutations observed, and statistically test against the null hypothesis of randomness.

Realpc -

Thanks for addressing the question.

I see that you are Charlie Wagner.

"I understand what evolutionary biologists mean by "random." The variations are not in response to the organism's needs, they are without purpose."

You've inserted the questionable phrase 'without purpose'. However, yes, observable genetic variation events here on earth initially occur naturally, rather than through some supernatural sensing of what the organism 'needs'.

"I do not think any "designer" did anything magical. I think there is some kind of law of complexity, which means natural systems tend to increase in complexity. Biological systems seem to evolve in the direction of greater complexity and intelligence. I believe in something like Bergson's "creative evolution.""

The theory of evolution applies only to life on earth (so far), not to all 'natural systems'. There are plenty of examples of lineages which have lost 'complexity', by any logical standard, like intestinal parasites. Biological evolution does not tend invariably to complexity, however you define it.

Your statement could be defended as a convoluted statement of the second law of thermodynamics (since "disordered" states can be perceived as more "complex" from a mathematical point of view). But if that was all you meant, you wouldn't be arguing about evolution.

Perhaps you're a clever but stubborn individual who came up with this "law of complexity" idea before studying the field of biology deeply enough, and is now loathe to let it go.

"I think that my belief is similar to ID, although not exactly the same. These are philosophical positions, not easily decided by scientific experiments or observations. But science can contribute to our understanding. I do not think science has to be materialist, and I don't think anyone can define "materialism" anyway."

I'll agree that there are plenty of philosophical positions that cannot be evaluated by scientific methods, and that obsession with the word 'materialism' tends to be fruitless.

Having said that, 'methodological materialism' is a good way to describe the almost univerally accepted assumptions which underly science, and which make it so convincing across so many religious, cultural, and philosophical borders.

"I think that we live in a universe which naturally produces life, which is intelligent and creative in ways we cannot fathom."

Fine, so do I. Why does that cause you to argue against evolution?

"I think that as biology and computer science progress, it will become increasingly evident that life is a natural product of the universe, which cannot be explained as accidents and natural selection."

You seem to feel that using the term "accident" makes the theory of evolution sound "bad". We don't yet know how life began. I agree that it is a natural product of the universe. Once life with nucleic acid genomes began, the invariably imperfect reproduction of nucleic acid genomes meant that evolution began. Natural selection also plays a major role. What we know about molecular biology now means that it is impossible for evolution not to happen. Using the word "accident" doesn't change things. Genetic variation is no more an "accident" than any other purely natural process.

"But right now, we don't know. No one knows."

Putting aside arguments over whether 'anyone really knows anything' and the like, we do know, from a vast amount of evidence in multiple fields, that natural genetic variation, natural selection, random genetic drift (and possibly someone has a name for some other simple, natural cause for change in allele frequency) are not only physically inevitable, but sufficient to explain the variety of life on earth.

"It's just terribly hard for some people to admit they don't have the big answers."

I'm tempted to refer to the old proverb about glass houses and stones. The theory of biological evolution deals exactly and only with the physical forms of life on earth. It draws on many other sciences, but they, too, deal only with the sensorily perceived physical universe. Big answers beyond this are by definition beyond the realm of science, and that's why science works.

We know lightning bolts like to strike tall metal rods. Why do we need to know why? The theory of electro-magnetism is utterly irrelevant to why we put tall metal rods on our buildings. Even if the theory of electro-magnetism were false, it wouldn't change the way we put tall metal rods on our buildings.

When I began my Ph.D. here at Mac (18 months ago), I walked into a field in which I had very little knowledge or experience. Of course one learns about evolution during a Biochemistry degree, but compared to the rigorous theoretical and experimental work that evolutionary biologists perform, it's child's play. (Italics added)

Realpc gratuitously asserted: Biological systems seem to evolve in the direction of greater complexity and intelligence.

I think there is some kind of law of complexity, which means natural systems tend to increase in complexity. Biological systems seem to evolve in the direction of greater complexity and intelligence.

— realpc

There are 300,000 species of beetle alone. How many species could one even generously consider intelligent? 20? How in the world does that indicate any kind of tendency?

I do not think a rational argument can be made that human beings are no more complex or intelligent than a slug. Well, maybe in some cases.

I do not think a rational argument can be made that human beings are no more complex or intelligent than a slug. Well, maybe in some cases.

I haven't seen that argument made anywhere on this blog, idiot.

But it is obvious to everyone (except some evolutionary biologists) that mammals, who came later, seem to have more of what we usually call intelligence than reptiles, who evolved earlier. And primates generally seem to have more intelligence than rodents, for example. And of course our own wonderful selves, the only species capable of destroying the planet. Other primate species, who evolved earlier than we did, cannot read or write. They don't even know that they are a product of evolution. I do not think a rational argument can be made that human beings are no more complex or intelligent than a slug. Well, maybe in some cases.

— realpc

But it is obvious to everyone (except some evolutionary biologists) that mammals, who came later, seem to have more of what we usually call intelligence than reptiles, who evolved earlier. And primates generally seem to have more intelligence than rodents, for example. And of course our own wonderful selves, the only species capable of destroying the planet. Other primate species, who evolved earlier than we did, cannot read or write. They don't even know that they are a product of evolution. I do not think a rational argument can be made that human beings are no more complex or intelligent than a slug. Well, maybe in some cases.

— realpc

Why do you think that common descent concept is so necessary in medicine?

Charlie Wagner/realpc -

Two questions -

"But it is obvious to everyone (except some evolutionary biologists) that mammals, who came later, seem to have more of what we usually call intelligence than reptiles, who evolved earlier. And primates generally seem to have more intelligence than rodents, for example."

1. Why throw out pointless insults and distortions?

Did anyone here argue that humans are "less complex than slugs" or that "mammals are less intelligent than reptiles"? Of course they didn't.

Since it's well known that genetic variation events often increase the size of the genome, ie they often "add information", the theory of evolution predicts that, under most circumstances, barring a recent planetary disaster or the like, the organisms with the largest genomes would be statistically most likely be found among the most recent species.

But no special "law of complexity" is required to explain this. And it's equally true of plants and unicellular organisms, which presumably have no "intelligence" at all. And counter-examples of adaptation to environments where loss of complexity is selected for are abundant.

2. Don't you think you've changed the subject here? First we were discussing whether natural mechanisms of genetic variation, which cannot be the result of magical intervention to "help" an organism and are thus random with respect to the "needs" of the organism, are sufficient to explain bacterial antibiotic resistance. You denied believing in magic intervention by a "designer" in that specific case.

Then you argued that a special "law of complexity" is required to explain the fact that the most complex genomes are found among the most recent lineages, to paraphrase. It's been shown that, despite your observation that the most "complex" organisms we know of, if we use "complex" to refer to large genomes, cephalized nervous systems, and the like, are recent lineages, no special law is needed to explain this, and it's what evolution would predict. Whether we should use the word "complex" in this sense is a seperate issue.

Now you're arguing against the total straw man suggestion that someone here said that monkeys are less intelligent than shrimp, or something analagous, when nobody said anything of the sort.

Ray -

"Why do you think that common descent concept is so necessary in medicine?"

It isn't possible to understand biomedical science without having some grasp of evolution.

Dr Egnor proves this. He shows that he has a sufficient grasp of bacterial antibiotic resistance that he can probably competently treat an infected patient. But only because, as I explained above, he implicitly (a harsher person might say hypocritically) accepts the evolutionary paradigm. If he were to actually consistently deny that bacteria experience mutation and natural selection, he would be forced to deny the correct understanding of bacterial antibiotic resistance, and would not be competent.

In terms of molecular machinery the scenario where a progeny species is less complex than an ancestor is actually easier to see, especially in single celled organisms. If the ancestral species was a generalist while its descendants became adapted to a much more narrow niche you may see a reduction in complexity.

— Dan Gaston

If he were to actually consistently deny that bacteria experience mutation and natural selection, he would be forced to deny the correct understanding of bacterial antibiotic resistance, and would not be competent.

Translation: Egnor understands and accepts evolution -- contrary to ALL of his recent assertions about its relevance -- and will continue to accept and use it, as long as we all agree not to call it "evolution" -- a magical word of such terrifying power that its mere utterance is sufficient to turn him into a frantic, gibbering liar.

But it is obvious to everyone (except some evolutionary biologists) that mammals, who came later, seem to have more of what we usually call intelligence than reptiles, who evolved earlier. And primates generally seem to have more intelligence than rodents, for example.

Other primate species, who evolved earlier than we did, cannot read or write.

I do not think any "designer" did anything magical. I think there is some kind of law of complexity, which means natural systems tend to increase in complexity. Biological systems seem to evolve in the direction of greater complexity and intelligence. I believe in something like Bergson's "creative evolution."

I think that my belief is similar to ID, although not exactly the same.

I do not think ... I don't think ... I think ... I think ...

It's just terribly hard for some people to admit they don't have the big answers.

Why do you think that common descent concept is so necessary in medicine?

There are 300,000 species of beetle alone. How many species could one even generously consider intelligent? 20? How in the world does that indicate any kind of tendency?

The more complex species evolved later. That does not mean all species evolve towards greater complexity. That is only true of the system as a whole. If all species evolved towards greater complexity, we would no longer have one-celled organisms. But the entire system depends on one-celled organisms and could not exist without them.

The fact that most of life remains relatively simple is evidence against Darwinism, not against CE (creative evolution -- since I do not agree with every single statement by every single IDist, I will call it CE from now on).

Darwinism assumes that increasing intelligence leads to better survival skills. Darwninism depends on the idea that species evolve because of survival pressures only -- not because of any law of complexity. Therefore a Darwinist must explain why intelligence has increased even though less intelligent species are perfectly good at surviving.

Our species -- possibly the most intelligent on earth -- does have great survival skills, and is great at destroying other species because of our technology. But aside from us, can you show that other intelligent species are better survivors than more primitive species? Are dolphins better survivors than sharks, for example? Are chimpanzees better survivors than rats?

The great intelligence of chimpanzees does not seem to have given them any great advantage over other species. Rats and cockroaches are good examples of survivors, but we don't consider them especially intelligent. One-celled creatures are, as we know, terrific survivors, and they have no brains at all.

So I think the evolution of intelligence supports CE, not NDE.

So lets summarize shall we. According to realpc, bacteria acquire antibiotic resistance because some "natural" intelligence preferentially causes beneficial mutations that confer resistance in advance of selection for some unknown purpose by some unknown mechanism. Although this process is completely "natural" there is absolutely no evidence for it and no experiment that can be performed to demonstrate it. However, this same mechanism (presumably) also acts at some times in some organisms for some unknown reason in order to make some of them more "complex". Apparently this has resulted in the ultimate "intelligence" on the planet, human beings, who die by the millions because this "natural" intelligence apparently cannot decide whether the bacteria should acquire resistance faster than the humans can develop appropriate immune responses. And of course all this means that evolution is not important to medicine, because obviously whoever the "natural" intelligence decides will win will win, regardless of what we do.

Of course, if humans are the best intelligence on the planet and they are not responsible, and if GOD is definately not responsible, (unless GOD is "natural"), then I guess it must be aliens who are doing all this invisible "natural" stuff.

By the way, does anyone have any real evidence that realpc is really Charlie Wagner? If you do then Charlie should be banned again for breaking the rules. If you don't have any evidence, I think that name calling only encourages him.

Realpc dissembled thusly: The more complex species evolved later. That does not mean all species evolve towards greater complexity. That is only true of the system as a whole.

A change of 0.00001% over billions of years is not what I'd call evolving towards greater complexity as a whole. Fact is, even if evolution were a simple random walk, towards or away from increased complexity, the more complex species would appear more generally as time passes. It is not an indication of any sort of plan or guidance. The Troll's approach is classic cherry-picking of data.

Realpc dissembled thusly: The more complex species evolved later. That does not mean all species evolve towards greater complexity. That is only true of the system as a whole.

The more complex species evolved later. That does not mean all species evolve towards greater complexity. That is only true of the system as a whole. If all species evolved towards greater complexity, we would no longer have one-celled organisms. But the entire system depends on one-celled organisms and could not exist without them.

The fact that most of life remains relatively simple is evidence against Darwinism, not against CE (creative evolution --- since I do not agree with every single statement by every single IDist, I will call it CE from now on).

Darwinism assumes that increasing intelligence leads to better survival skills. Darwninism depends on the idea that species evolve because of survival pressures only --- not because of any law of complexity. Therefore a Darwinist must explain why intelligence has increased even though less intelligent species are perfectly good at surviving.

Our species --- possibly the most intelligent on earth --- does have great survival skills, and is great at destroying other species because of our technology. But aside from us, can you show that other intelligent species are better survivors than more primitive species? Are dolphins better survivors than sharks, for example? Are chimpanzees better survivors than rats?

The great intelligence of chimpanzees does not seem to have given them any great advantage over other species. Rats and cockroaches are good examples of survivors, but we don't consider them especially intelligent. One-celled creatures are, as we know, terrific survivors, and they have no brains at all.

So I think the evolution of intelligence supports CE, not NDE.

of course all this means that evolution is not important to medicine, because obviously whoever the "natural" intelligence decides will win will win, regardless of what we do.

The more complex species evolved later. That does not mean all species evolve towards greater complexity. That is only true of the system as a whole. If all species evolved towards greater complexity, we would no longer have one-celled organisms. But the entire system depends on one-celled organisms and could not exist without them.

— realpc

The fact that most of life remains relatively simple is evidence against Darwinism, not against CE (creative evolution --- since I do not agree with every single statement by every single IDist, I will call it CE from now on).

Darwinism assumes that increasing intelligence leads to better survival skills.

Darwninism depends on the idea that species evolve because of survival pressures only --- not because of any law of complexity. Therefore a Darwinist must explain why intelligence has increased even though less intelligent species are perfectly good at surviving.

Our species --- possibly the most intelligent on earth --- does have great survival skills, and is great at destroying other species because of our technology. But aside from us, can you show that other intelligent species are better survivors than more primitive species?