Mark C. Chu-Carroll critiques Dembski's Latest

From the point of view of Dembski's previous works, it is not the issue of where the information comes from that matters. Dembski had claimed to have theorems (his Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information and his No Free Lunch argument) that made it impossible that the many adaptations in life were put there by natural selection. As I and many others before me have explained the first of these arguments is wrong, and the second fails if the fitness surface is not a highly-rugged "needle-in-a-haystack" form.

Dembski and Marks now argue that it takes information to choose a fitness surface that is not rugged. Therefore, they argue, the information had to be pre-existing, and could not arise by natural selection. However they do say that they are not denying the effectiveness of natural selection (at least, not in this article). So we are left with natural selection as the agency bringing about the adaptations! If that is their current position, it amounts to giving up on the Law of Conservation of CSI and giving up on the No Free Lunch argument. It leaves them with a Designer who operates by setting up a universe amenable to the effectiveness of natural selection! They are saying that the information must be pre-existing, encoded in the fitness surface, but they do not have any objection to natural selection being the mechanism putting the adaptations into the organisms. At least not in this new argument of theirs. May we welcome them to our side of that argument?

Obfuscatory math makes Baby Jesus cry.

Joe that made my brain hurt.

Are they now claiming (clandestinely of course) Divine Intervention, not in mutation/adaptation/selection, but in environment? Is that just me reading "landscape" too literally, or is that really what they're hinting??

How can a fitness surface be 'chosen'? Isn't it contingent on complex history like everything else?

Joe Felsenstein said: They are saying that the information must be pre-existing, encoded in the fitness surface, but they do not have any objection to natural selection being the mechanism putting the adaptations into the organisms. At least not in this new argument of theirs. May we welcome them to our side of that argument?

This paper was written under the supposition that common descent holds and that natural selection is the principal mechanism behind it. Writing under a supposition does not mean accepting it. My own views of the truth of the matter are clearly spelled out in THE DESIGN OF LIFE (http://www.thedesignoflife.com). In particular, I think that irreducible complexity at the molecular level (especially in the origin of DNA and protein synthesis) provides compelling evidence for discontinuity in the history of life.

There are many simple examples from physics that illustrate the problems with Dembski’s approach and his attempts to define “information.” I have sometimes used dendritic growth as an example.

Another example can come from percolation. Water seeps into sand, and as it percolates, it encounters some particles that are soluble. Some of these dissolve and the insoluble particles surrounding them collapse into a somewhat different arrangement as the water continues to percolate.

Now freeze-frame for a moment.

Why would anyone assign those particular percolating paths and branching patterns some particular probability? What would be special about this configuration compared with the billions of other possibilities that could occur? What “information” is contained in this freeze-frame? It is a branching set of paths that result in water progressing through the sand, adapting to the “changing landscape” as it goes. What is special about it?

Yet this appears to be precisely what Dembski and his cohorts are doing when they attempt to assign some probability to and read “information” into a particular evolutionary outcome. It is Dembski who is reading “target” into every outcome.

There is no target. What falls out is what worked. Do it again and something different will fall out that also “works.” How does one justify assigning a probability or some notion of “information” to a particular outcome? Who gets to decide? Spiders might like something different from dolphins, which in turn, would prefer something different from algae.

Don’t these IDiots ever catch on that the millions of living organisms that exist on this planet along with the many millions more that have existed in the history of this planet are telling them that lots of workable things fall out in the course of evolution? Rerun the “experiment” and an entirely different workable history results. Which history and which “dendrites” are special?

paragwinn said:

Joe Felsenstein said: They are saying that the information must be pre-existing, encoded in the fitness surface, but they do not have any objection to natural selection being the mechanism putting the adaptations into the organisms. At least not in this new argument of theirs. May we welcome them to our side of that argument?

Dembski (http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/life%e2%80%99s-conservation-law-why-darwinian-evolution-cannot-create-biological-information/#comment-316221):

This paper was written under the supposition that common descent holds and that natural selection is the principal mechanism behind it. Writing under a supposition does not mean accepting it. My own views of the truth of the matter are clearly spelled out in THE DESIGN OF LIFE (http://www.thedesignoflife.com). In particular, I think that irreducible complexity at the molecular level (especially in the origin of DNA and protein synthesis) provides compelling evidence for discontinuity in the history of life.

emphasis in original

Dembski and Marks now argue that it takes information to choose a fitness surface that is not rugged. Therefore, they argue, the information had to be pre-existing, and could not arise by natural selection.

but...

fitness spaces are not determined solely by physical environments. Moreover, the physical environments themselves are often influenced by previous selection events on the organisms that inhabit them.

to assume one can construct a realistic fitness model to begin with in any kind of active, natural environment is wishful thinking at best.

the "information" that Dembski and Marks are lacking is simply the fact that they don't know fuck all about how organisms interact, and so couldn't construct an even remotely realistic model.

This is the problem with extrapolating from simple models to the real world; the results can generate interesting directions to explore, or they can be so disconnected from reality as to be beyond useless.

the whole exercise is beyond wankery.

Another way to look at what Dembski and Marks contend that they have done is to assume that there's an equal possibility that, via their "usage" of NFL theorems, then all potential space in a given field of potential morphospace can be occupied. However, as we know well from anatomical and paleobiological data, that's not exactly how living things evolve. For example, if you look at the fish to tetrapod transition, there are several different taxa that have varying permutations on the basic "body plan" for front and rear limbs, with as many as approximately 8 digits before they are "standardized" into five. Maybe we might have been better off with more than five digits, but that's what all post-Devonian tetrapods have.

Mike Elzinga said: Don’t these IDiots ever catch on that the millions of living organisms that exist on this planet along with the many millions more that have existed in the history of this planet are telling them that lots of workable things fall out in the course of evolution? Rerun the “experiment” and an entirely different workable history results. Which history and which “dendrites” are special?

jfx said: Unfortunately for ID in general and Dembski in particular, the jig is up. And in the void created by ID's now-painfully-obvious lack of any real scientific theory, mechanism, or methodology, we have the cracked actors living in a perpetual ideological feedback loop: write the same debunked paper...over and over...til Kingdom Come.

fnxtr said: Joe that made my brain hurt.

Are they now claiming (clandestinely of course) Divine Intervention, not in mutation/adaptation/selection, but in environment? Is that just me reading "landscape" too literally, or is that really what they're hinting??

How can a fitness surface be 'chosen'? Isn't it contingent on complex history like everything else?

You see, Dembski uses very peculiar definitions of information; or, to be more precise, he doesn't use any consistent definition.

— Mark C. Chu-Carroll

This paper was written under the supposition that common descent holds and that natural selection is the principal mechanism behind it. Writing under a supposition does not mean accepting it. My own views of the truth of the matter are clearly spelled out in THE DESIGN OF LIFE (http://www.thedesignoflife.com). In particular, I think that irreducible complexity at the molecular level (especially in the origin of DNA and protein synthesis) provides compelling evidence for discontinuity in the history of life.

I'm always looking for good analogies for ID rationalizations, and the mathematics used here are not among my strengths. Is Dembski saying the equivalent of: "because the chances of a given sperm fertilizing an egg are very small, fertilization is an unlikely event?" Does this fallacy have a formal (or even informal) name?

I really don't understand why anyone would even take the time to write such a paper when biology has already demonstrated that natural selection with random mutations alone is not how nature works in the formation of life's diversity. The case is so bad for natural selection with random mutations today that there are scientist arguing that on their own are not even capable of one act of speciation, far less all the speciation events – that other factors are required.
I suppose (taking a blind stab at it) he could be trying to run the course of “natural selection/ mutation = teleological argument”, thus if you teach you can't exclude teaching ID on such a ground – or some such thing as that. However, that too seems to far out there to be of much worth. For one, they should not be teaching or even indicating that natural selection/ random mutation caused life's diversity in a science class given that we know, by science, such teaching is in error.
Whats more, if one did want to equate natural selection / random mutation to some sort of religious or philosophical ideology, one need not deal with Dembski's law of information conservation at all, but instead turn to the science of sociology and simply demonstrate the connection. However, in doing so one directly sees the danger in the one sided teaching of Darwin's theory as though it is some sort of fact, which in turn, far from justifies the teaching of ID. That being the case one may be able to reason, in some limited way, as to why Dembski chooses an effort of equating a dead theory with having a teleological nature. Perhaps I should take the question to his web site and ask it.
In the meantime, given that I am here – I best ask as to why it is so much time is being spent on trying to tear apart his argument when the whole thing is focused on a dead theory anyway. Would it not be far easier to simply state that be it teleological in nature or not, it's a dead theory so who gives a sh*t? Need we be reminded here of Lynn Margulis and her claim on the narrow neo-Darwinistic formulation being but “a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology”? I mean, this isn't a home where a minor twentieth-century religious sect preaches its views, is it??

Troy trolls.... The case is so bad for natural selection with random mutations today that there are scientist arguing that on their own are not even capable of one act of speciation...

By the way, why is it that trolls can never figure out the return key?

Troy, that big key on the right of the keyboard, the one that looks like a backwards "L", that's called "return".

You use it to make "paragraphs".

Paragraphs are used to separate thoughts so your screed is readable, if not actually coherent.

You use it like this...

Screed one. {return}

Screed two. {return}

etc.

Try it sometime.

Okay, once again, just for Troy this time:

Show of hands please, who thinks RM+NS is the be-all and end-all of modern evolutionary theory?

Yeah, see, nobody. That's what I thought.

You're a few decades behind in your arguments, Troy, better catch up.

There's this thing called reading, you might want to try that sometime, too.

Matt G said: I'm always looking for good analogies for ID rationalizations, and the mathematics used here are not among my strengths. Is Dembski saying the equivalent of: "because the chances of a given sperm fertilizing an egg are very small, fertilization is an unlikely event?" Does this fallacy have a formal (or even informal) name?

Sorry Troy, but none of Dembski's mathematical "laws" have been accepted as valid by fellow mathematicians. Joe Felsenstein - does the name ring a bell, Troy - has an extensive summary demonstrating how Dembski's abysmal mathematics doesn't refute the scientific validity of natural selection:

http://ncseweb.org/rncse/27/3-4/has-natural-selection-been-refuted-arguments-william-dembski

In his rather lucid account, Felsenstein concludes,

"Dembski argues that there are theorems that prevent natural selection from explaining the adaptations that we see. His arguments do not work. There can be no theorem saying that adaptive information is conserved and cannot be increased by natural selection. Gene frequency changes caused by natural selection can be shown to generate specified information. The No Free Lunch theorem is mathematically correct, but it is inapplicable to real biology. Specified information, including complex specified information, can be generated by natural selection without needing to be 'smuggled in'. When we see adaptation, we are not looking at positive evidence of billions and trillions of interventions by a designer. Dembski has not refuted natural selection as an explanation for adaptation."

Stop wasting our time and yours by insisting upon posting more extensive examples of your breathtaking inanity. Instead, I recommend trying to learn something about modern biology for once.

Peace and Long Life (as an AiG Dalek Clone),

John Kwok

John Kwok said: Another way to look at what Dembski and Marks contend that they have done is to assume that there's an equal possibility that, via their "usage" of NFL theorems, then all potential space in a given field of potential morphospace can be occupied. However, as we know well from anatomical and paleobiological data, that's not exactly how living things evolve. For example, if you look at the fish to tetrapod transition, there are several different taxa that have varying permutations on the basic "body plan" for front and rear limbs, with as many as approximately 8 digits before they are "standardized" into five. Maybe we might have been better off with more than five digits, but that's what all post-Devonian tetrapods have.

So much for asking the question over at the Dembski web site – can no longer post comments there.

stevaroni stated: “Then it shouldn’t be hard for you to produce this data and those names.
Please do so now.
Oh, yeah, that’s right. You can’t because it doesn’t really exist. Sorry, I keep forgetting that.”
He stated that in reply to my statement : “The case is so bad for natural selection with random mutations today that there are scientist arguing that on their own are not even capable of one act of speciation…”

Lynn Margulis is one who argues that more is needed than natural selection and random mutation. She states that “Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations by gene-level natural selection), is a complete funk”. She claims that “symbiotic relationships between organisms of often different phyla or kingdoms are the driving force of evolution.” “Examination of the results from the Human Genome Project lends some credence to an endosymbiotic theory of evolution Human Genome Project” because “significant portions of the human genome are either bacterial or viral in origin”. (see her wikipedia page). Given such findings are not alone found in the human genome, it is rather glaringly strong evidence that life's diversity did not get here via natural selection and random mutation alone, although that has not stopped certain Darwinst from claiming otherwise.
Of course strevaroni will object that such clear evidence is not actually stating that natural selection and random mutation can lead to a single act of speciation. Perhaps he will like this better: “... natural selection alone cannot lead to speciation ...”. That comes from a collage lecture guide which can be viewed here: http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:DZU_ncD3UNYJ:www.elcamino.edu/faculty/rsidhu/fall%252007/Study%2520Guide%2520Lecture%2520Exam%25203.doc+natural+selection+alone+cannot+lead+to+speciation&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Perhaps the faculty out at Elcamino are a bunch of creationist liars – but I feel fairly certain that actually their teaching is by no means odd or uncommon. Perhaps strevaroni could blow all of this completely out of the water by showing a science experiment, which others can replicate, wherein the factors of natural selection / random mutation are completely isolated and clearly lead, on their own, to speciation. In the meantime, I'll stand with my claim.

jasonmitchell said:

John Kwok said: Another way to look at what Dembski and Marks contend that they have done is to assume that there's an equal possibility that, via their "usage" of NFL theorems, then all potential space in a given field of potential morphospace can be occupied. However, as we know well from anatomical and paleobiological data, that's not exactly how living things evolve. For example, if you look at the fish to tetrapod transition, there are several different taxa that have varying permutations on the basic "body plan" for front and rear limbs, with as many as approximately 8 digits before they are "standardized" into five. Maybe we might have been better off with more than five digits, but that's what all post-Devonian tetrapods have.

unless you are a Panda - in which case you have 6 digits (or 5 + 1*) :)

“Okay, once again, just for Troy this time:
Show of hands please, who thinks RM+NS is the be-all and end-all of modern evolutionary theory?
Yeah, see, nobody. That’s what I thought.
You’re a few decades behind in your arguments, Troy, better catch up.
There’s this thing called reading, you might want to try that sometime, too.”

Yeah – that's the point – Denbeski reads to me like he is using a debunked theory. You might want to do your hand count again though as it seems to me that stevaroni is upset from the idea that RM+NS isn't the be-all and end-all of modern evolutionary theory.

There are numerous instances of documented observations of speciation, and there are ways to achieve speciation besides just random mutation + natural selection, such as hybridization, or genetic drift.

And I notice that Troy insists on quoting Lynn Margulis, thinking that she opposes evolution, which she does not. She refers to her critics and competitors as "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology" due to sour grapes for rejecting her pet theory of Endosymbiosis, in that the primary driving force of evolution is inter-species symbioses, and not inter-species competition coupled with accumulation of positive mutations. Unfortunately for Dr Margulis, evidence suggests that, although some inter-species symbioses were earthshaking evolutionary events, i.e., the first protists acquiring mitochondria and then chloroplasts from bacterial symbiotes, or the acquisition of gut flora in metazoans, the primary forces driving evolution are, in fact, inter-species competition, interaction between species and the environment, and accumulation of positive mutations.

To regard one specific authority's testimony as holy solely because she (or he) disagrees with the majority, and especially when she (or he) has a tremendous amount of rancor invested in her/his disagreement is extraordinarily foolish. Evidence is the currency of science, and if one can not present (enough) evidence to support one's hypothesis, no amount of name-calling, rancor, hurt feelings, or predictions of doom and future humiliation can make up for this.

As for insinuating that anything written, especially anything pertaining to science, by Bill Dembski is trustworthy, well, only a dupe, a liar, or a lying dupe will suggest that Bill Dembski's word can be trusted, let alone consider his word to be marginally more valuable than the paper it's written on.

“Sorry Troy, but none of Dembski’s mathematical “laws” have been accepted as valid by fellow mathematicians.”

I don't claim they are valid – never have.

fnxtr said: Okay, once again, just for Troy this time: Show of hands please, who thinks RM+NS is the be-all and end-all of modern evolutionary theory? Yeah, see, nobody. That's what I thought. You're a few decades behind in your arguments, Troy, better catch up. There's this thing called reading, you might want to try that sometime, too.

Stanton said: There are numerous instances of documented observations of speciation, and there are ways to achieve speciation besides just random mutation + natural selection, such as hybridization, or genetic drift. As for insinuating that anything written, especially anything pertaining to science, by Bill Dembski is trustworthy, well, only a dupe, a liar, or a lying dupe will suggest that Bill Dembski's word can be trusted, let alone consider his word to be marginally more valuable than the paper it's written on.

John Kwok said: That thought regarding the Giant Panda did occur to me last night after I posted:

jasonmitchell said:

John Kwok said: ..spipped for size---, if you look at the fish to tetrapod transition, there are several different taxa that have varying permutations on the basic "body plan" for front and rear limbs, with as many as approximately 8 digits before they are "standardized" into five. Maybe we might have been better off with more than five digits, but that's what all post-Devonian tetrapods have.

unless you are a Panda - in which case you have 6 digits (or 5 + 1*) :)

But in the Giant Panda's case, it is a crude, but still effective, "substitute", for an opposable thumb. If there was really an "Intelligent Designer", then why would he/she/it create such a poor substitute?

Troy said: “Sorry Troy, but none of Dembski’s mathematical “laws” have been accepted as valid by fellow mathematicians.” I don't claim they are valid – never have.

A) Scientists already realize that there is more to evolution than just random mutation + natural selection, and that other factors can lead to speciation, as well. So you can desist with the ranting and the raving.

B) I happen to be an alumnus of El Camino College, and as such, you're a lying asshole, and an abominably incompetent judge of people to assume that the posters at Panda's Thumb are going to automatically label the excellent teachers at El Camino as "Creationist Liars" simply because they phrase the explanations of Evolutionary Biology differently.

Stanton :“There are numerous instances of documented observations of speciation, and there are ways to achieve speciation besides just random mutation + natural selection, such as hybridization, or genetic drift.
And I notice that Troy insists on quoting Lynn Margulis, thinking that she opposes evolution, which she does not...........”

What is wrong with you that you have to make up a bunch of bullsh*t about me that simply is not true? Are you some blind religious fanatic who thrives on hate, or is it a genetic thing wherein your just an a**hole by birth? I don' think Lynn Margulis opposes evolution – never have.

As far as numorous speciation events taking place that are documented – yeah, that's pretty common knowledge – the best examples of which are via non-Darwinian methods. However, you there are “ways to achieve speciation besides JUST random mutation + natural selection”. Perhaps you could be so kind as to point out a speciation event where “JUST” random mutation + natural selection achieved it. I personally don't think you can do it, even though you seem to clearly indicate that such can be done.

Troy sez..... I don’t claim they (Dembski's laws) are valid – never have.

Matt G said: I’m always looking for good analogies for ID rationalizations, and the mathematics used here are not among my strengths. Is Dembski saying the equivalent of: “because the chances of a given sperm fertilizing an egg are very small, fertilization is an unlikely event?” Does this fallacy have a formal (or even informal) name?

Stanton :“Do realize that we’re dealing with a troll who wants to “kick the balls of Darwinst” (sic) because scientists rejected a hypothesis about the existence of an Ice Age lake, nevermind that they then readily changed their minds once more evidence was found.”

Apparently you don't like truth. Scientist did not reject the data, Darwinst did. They did not change their mind when the evidence was presented and further supported – not for most the lifetime of the scientist who put the data up to start with. They did however actively act against any promotion of the data, treating it as though it was inferior trash not worthy of a Darwinst's time. In fact some of them went to their graves going against it.

Furthermore, you know perfectly well that my scope is far wider than one example of Darwinst fighting against the progress of science.

Troy said: What is wrong with you that you have to make up a bunch of bullsh*t about me that simply is not true? Are you some blind religious fanatic who thrives on hate, or is it a genetic thing wherein your just an a**hole by birth? I don' think Lynn Margulis opposes evolution – never have.

As far as numorous speciation events taking place that are documented – yeah, that's pretty common knowledge – the best examples of which are via non-Darwinian methods.

However, you there are “ways to achieve speciation besides JUST random mutation + natural selection”. Perhaps you could be so kind as to point out a speciation event where “JUST” random mutation + natural selection achieved it. I personally don't think you can do it, even though you seem to clearly indicate that such can be done.

Troy said: Apparently you don't like truth.

Scientist did not reject the data, Darwinst did. They did not change their mind when the evidence was presented and further supported – not for most the lifetime of the scientist who put the data up to start with. They did however actively act against any promotion of the data, treating it as though it was inferior trash not worthy of a Darwinst's time. In fact some of them went to their graves going against it.

Furthermore, you know perfectly well that my scope is far wider than one example of Darwinst fighting against the progress of science.

Troy Trolls.... Apparently you don’t like truth. Scientist did not reject the data

They did not change their mind when the evidence was presented and further supported

“By the way, why is it that trolls can never figure out the return key?”

Just so you know, when pasting from OpenOffice into Comments the paragraph spacing is often deleted – an error which I did not expect.

Troy said: Stanton :“There are numerous instances of documented observations of speciation, and there are ways to achieve speciation besides just random mutation + natural selection, such as hybridization, or genetic drift. And I notice that Troy insists on quoting Lynn Margulis, thinking that she opposes evolution, which she does not...........” What is wrong with you that you have to make up a bunch of bullsh*t about me that simply is not true? Are you some blind religious fanatic who thrives on hate, or is it a genetic thing wherein your just an a**hole by birth? I don' think Lynn Margulis opposes evolution – never have. As far as numorous speciation events taking place that are documented – yeah, that's pretty common knowledge – the best examples of which are via non-Darwinian methods. However, you there are “ways to achieve speciation besides JUST random mutation + natural selection”. Perhaps you could be so kind as to point out a speciation event where “JUST” random mutation + natural selection achieved it. I personally don't think you can do it, even though you seem to clearly indicate that such can be done.

Stanton : “I mean, why am I a blind religious fanatic who’s an asshole by birth when you’re the one ranting and raving about the sufferings of the discoverer of Lake Missoula, or how Darwin is directly responsible for the Holocaust and the Irish Genocide ...”

First, I did not say you where that but instead ask if you where that.

Second, I ask that because you distort the sh*t out of things – example in the above is your claim I say that the Irish Genocide was Darwin's responsibility – I never said any such thing or even remotely hinted that to be the case. Nor do I claim Darwin caused the Holocaust.

It kind of makes me wonder if your not some sort of freak fanatic who simply can not help but to distort what people say when you view them to be your enemy. Heck, I don't know – it could just as well be that you've found in the past piling up a bunch of lies on people you don't like makes them go away and that's why you do it. In any event, in the end it is not for me to say exactly why you as an individual are a distorting liar who, by most any definition of a**hole, is one – the why would be for you to explain to me.

Mike Elzinga said:

Matt G said: I'm always looking for good analogies for ID rationalizations, and the mathematics used here are not among my strengths. Is Dembski saying the equivalent of: "because the chances of a given sperm fertilizing an egg are very small, fertilization is an unlikely event?" Does this fallacy have a formal (or even informal) name?

Razzle-dazzle comes to mind. The shtick is to appear erudite and “scientific”. All pseudo-scientists do it. Basically this probability shtick is often referred to as the Lottery Winner Fallacy. It amounts to the conflation of "X wins the lottery" with "someone wins the lottery."

Well Troy is now playing the "victim" card in his exchange with Stanton. Maybe Troy has forgotten that he, himself, had insinuated some kind of link between Darwin and genocide, including the Shoah (the Nazi Holocaust), in this rather rambling, quite bizarre, statement of his:

"....Quite frankly all high school text books and high school biology teachers should spend time on exactly this subject – the unfounded anti-Irish racism in Malthus, Spencers elevation of it, and Darwin’s big run with it – and the explosion of its use after Darwin in efforts that so-called “scientifically justified” all sorts of human suffering inclusive of genocide. Beat the piss out of the Darwinist and get their cheesy belief system crap out of our school – and here we can do it, not with a belief system, but merely by sticking to the facts. To stand up, in class, and call their stuff a worthless infiltration of philosophical crap into the realm of science, all in support of an ugly belief system, is of course more justified than any claims that all who seek god in nature are pieces of sh*t – after all, the facts clearly demonstrate that is simply not the case."

The ever delusional Troy doesn't pass intellectual muster IMHO. Stanton has him pegged correctly.

stevaroni :What data, Troy? Don’t argue about “Darwinists”, just show me the data.

Already posted it back when the matter first came up – you didn't get it then, nor will you now. For everyone else, again, you will find all you need in standard geology book on the flood from glacial lake Missoula – Dave Alt has a well written one called “Glacial Lake Missoula and Its Humongous Floods”. That the Darwinist spent forever and a day fighting against it is certainly part of the story. It is but one of many examples of the same group of thinkers bashing against the evidence because the empirical evidence did not support their lofty theory.

For an on-line coverage one might try this site: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2917678/J-Harlen-Bretz

John Kwok said: Well Troy is now playing the "victim" card in his exchange with Stanton.

Maybe Troy has forgotten that he, himself, had insinuated some kind of link between Darwin and genocide, including the Shoah (the Nazi Holocaust), in this rather rambling, quite bizarre, statement of his:

"....Quite frankly all high school text books and high school biology teachers should spend time on exactly this subject – the unfounded anti-Irish racism in Malthus, Spencers elevation of it, and Darwin’s big run with it – and the explosion of its use after Darwin in efforts that so-called “scientifically justified” all sorts of human suffering inclusive of genocide. Beat the piss out of the Darwinist and get their cheesy belief system crap out of our school – and here we can do it, not with a belief system, but merely by sticking to the facts. To stand up, in class, and call their stuff a worthless infiltration of philosophical crap into the realm of science, all in support of an ugly belief system, is of course more justified than any claims that all who seek god in nature are pieces of sh*t – after all, the facts clearly demonstrate that is simply not the case."

Troy said: For everyone else, again, you will find all you need in standard geology book on the flood from glacial lake Missoula – Dave Alt has a well written one called “Glacial Lake Missoula and Its Humongous Floods”. That the Darwinist spent forever and a day fighting against it is certainly part of the story. It is but one of many examples of the same group of thinkers bashing against the evidence because the empirical evidence did not support their lofty theory.

Frank J said: Not speaking necessarily negatively about common descent in the quote above, Dembski omits the “universal” qualifier. But note also that he refers to not just common descent, but that and the mechanism behind it. Well, Behe too rejects that “complete package”. Elsewhere, Dembski expressed doubt that humans and chimps evolved from common ancestors, and many people misinterpreted it as him doubting that they have common ancestors.

from Wikipedia's Chimpanzee Genome Project article A database now exists containing the genetic differences between human and chimpanzee genes, with about thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. Gene duplications account for most of the sequence differences between humans and chimps. Single-base-pair substitutions account for about half as much genetic change as does gene duplication. Typical human and chimp homologs of proteins differ in only an average of two amino acids. About 30 percent of all human proteins are identical in sequence to the corresponding chimp protein. As mentioned above, gene duplications are a major source of differences between human and chimp genetic material, with about 2.7 percent of the genome now representing differences having been produced by gene duplications or deletions during approximately 6 million years[4] since humans and chimps diverged from their common evolutionary ancestor. The comparable variation within human populations is 0.5 percent

Troy: "Lynn Margulis is one who argues that more is needed than natural selection and random mutation."

Troy, you really don't know what Margulis is claiming. Her point (quite debatable, by the way) is that random mutation of your basic canonical genome is not the be all and end all of evolution. She really has no issues with natural selection, and suggests that the scope of genetic change (yes, that would be random mutation) upon which NS acts includes variability at the levels of the genomes of microorganisms that make up the holistic "animal".

“You mean like how the London Underground Mosquito, Culex molestus, evolved from a population of European Common Gnat, C. pipiens, trapped in the sewersystems of London almost 100 years ago, or how cichlids have undergone and are still undergoing rapid diversification and speciation in the lakes of East Africa, or how the Apple Maggot Fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, is on the verge of speciating because different populations have been genetically isolated from each other because different populations prefer different species of cultivated fruit?”

No, that is not what I mean – those examples include something other than “JUST” natural selection and random mutation. Perhaps you could be so kind as to point out a speciation event where “JUST” random mutation + natural selection achieved it, given that you very much appear to think such things take place.

Troy said: For everyone else, again, you will find all you need in standard geology book on the flood from glacial lake Missoula – Dave Alt has a well written one called “Glacial Lake Missoula and Its Humongous Floods”. That the Darwinist spent forever and a day fighting against it is certainly part of the story. It is but one of many examples of the same group of thinkers bashing against the evidence because the empirical evidence did not support their lofty theory. For an on-line coverage one might try this site: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2917678/J-Harlen-Bretz

Oh, lookie! Troy is trotting out the "hate" card again. Whiny little bee-yatch.

Troy said: “You mean like how the London Underground Mosquito, Culex molestus, evolved from a population of European Common Gnat, C. pipiens, trapped in the sewersystems of London almost 100 years ago, or how cichlids have undergone and are still undergoing rapid diversification and speciation in the lakes of East Africa, or how the Apple Maggot Fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, is on the verge of speciating because different populations have been genetically isolated from each other because different populations prefer different species of cultivated fruit?” No, that is not what I mean – those examples include something other than “JUST” natural selection and random mutation.

Troy sez.... For everyone else, again, you will find all you need in standard geology book on the flood from glacial lake Missoula – Dave Alt has a well written one called “Glacial Lake Missoula and Its Humongous Floods”. That the Darwinist spent forever and a day fighting against it is certainly part of the story.

“Troy, you really don’t know what Margulis is claiming. Her point (quite debatable, by the way) is that random mutation of your basic canonical genome is not the be all and end all of evolution..... “

Perhaps not – the way I read her is that, as you put it, restricted neo-Darwinism is “not the be all and end all of evolution”, which to me seems very much the same as saying “more is needed than natural selection and random mutation”. There is a little more to the matter – what is polploidy, what is gene drift, what are the genome changes via bacteria and virus (to name but a few) – are they things we toss out as not playing a very real or important role in a comprehensive theory? I think not. Furthermore, I think she is pointing a finger at exactly those who do act in the capacity of elevating a theory which does not really embrace them, but instead tends to uses them when needed to say “see, a speciation event” and then ignores them when ejaculating utterances of the lofty nature of a general theory. Given the level to which she herself seems to have banked upon the importance symbiotic relations, I don't know how she could not feel that way – but, like you say, perhaps I misunderstand.

Dan said:

Troy said: “You mean like how the London Underground Mosquito, Culex molestus, evolved from a population of European Common Gnat, C. pipiens, trapped in the sewersystems of London almost 100 years ago, or how cichlids have undergone and are still undergoing rapid diversification and speciation in the lakes of East Africa, or how the Apple Maggot Fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, is on the verge of speciating because different populations have been genetically isolated from each other because different populations prefer different species of cultivated fruit?” No, that is not what I mean – those examples include something other than “JUST” natural selection and random mutation.

Well don't keep it a secret. What mechanisms other than mutation and selection were involved?

phantomreader42 said:

Dan said: Well don't keep it a secret. What mechanisms other than mutation and selection were involved?

Obviously the Noodly Appendage! rAmen!

“Well Troy is now playing the “victim” card in his exchange with Stanton. Maybe Troy has forgotten that he, himself, had insinuated some kind of link between Darwin and genocide...”
I have not forgotten, but hardly am I hardly one who one insinuates it – there is a link and it is very well documented. Gould, for one, pointed directly at it.

With respect to the flood, glacial lake Missoula, and the scab lands: The paper did not mention Darwinist, it is true. However, that there is a very strong historical relationship between uniformitarianism and Darwinism is rather well known – Darwinst defending the one as much as the other.

It is not the case that Darwinst ignored the data for thirty years, although they pretty well did so, with anger and lots of name calling, to the matter of the flood via glacial lake Missoula. They ignored catastrophe for much much longer than that – closer to 100 years. Georges Cuvier had the theory of catastrophe, along with indication in the empirical evidence that it took place, prior to the days of Darwin. The idea, with empirical support, goes back at least to 1796. With the advent of beating the piss out of anyone not for Darwin, both in geology and biology, the idea of catastrophe was sh*t upon, whenever it came up (you where a delusional insane Christian if you even mentioned it) ending at long last (for the most part) as the work of Alvarez basically removed all question (late 70's and early 80's). To give the idea that they only went against Bretz would be very misleading indeed, he was but one in a list over 100 years long.

However, enough on that for now – after all this is suppose to be about the ID paper. I take it you all reject my thinking that Dembski uses to narrow a definition for the general process of evolution right from the start – am I correct in that thinking or no?

Troy wrote:

"No, that is not what I mean – those examples include something other than “JUST” natural selection and random mutation."

What has this got to do with the latest irreproducible conflagration from Dembski? What does this have to do with anything? Oh well, at least Troiy has stopped using the word HATE in every single post, even if he still displays the characteristics.

As for an expmple of speciation driven primarily by natural selection, I already provided Troy with an example days ago, walking sticks. I even cited a PLOS publication as documentation. Another favorite example is Galapagos Finches. The beak size variation is caused primarily by random mutations and acted on primarily by natural selection. There is over fifty years of data on this example.

Now Troy can always claim that other processes were involved in the speciation events, so what? What population can entirely escape all other factors? What if some other processes were involved, what then? If Troy is still pitching the Darwin = atheism = hate nonsense then I guess that he could still accept evolution if Darwin were somehow wrong about it. Then one could believe in speciation without having to pay homage to the holy Darwin, I guess. However, the porcesses would still be natural and under the study of modern evolutionary bilology. If Troy doesn't want to worship Darwin, so what? Neither does anyone else.

Troy wrote:

"Just so you know, when pasting from OpenOffice into Comments the paragraph spacing is often deleted – an error which I did not expect."

Does it randomly delete plurals as well?

Matt G said: I'm always looking for good analogies for ID rationalizations, and the mathematics used here are not among my strengths. Is Dembski saying the equivalent of: "because the chances of a given sperm fertilizing an egg are very small, fertilization is an unlikely event?" Does this fallacy have a formal (or even informal) name?

Troy said:

You mean like how the London Underground Mosquito, Culex molestus, evolved from a population of European Common Gnat, C. pipiens, trapped in the sewersystems of London almost 100 years ago, or how cichlids have undergone and are still undergoing rapid diversification and speciation in the lakes of East Africa, or how the Apple Maggot Fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, is on the verge of speciating because different populations have been genetically isolated from each other because different populations prefer different species of cultivated fruit?

No, that is not what I mean – those examples include something other than “JUST” natural selection and random mutation. Perhaps you could be so kind as to point out a speciation event where “JUST” random mutation + natural selection achieved it, given that you very much appear to think such things take place.

Troy says..... With respect to the flood, glacial lake Missoula, and the scab lands: The paper did not mention Darwinist, it is true. However, that there is a very strong historical relationship between uniformitarianism and Darwinism is rather well known – Darwinst defending the one as much as the other.

I ask myself - did I ever read in Natural History and article by Gould wherein he explained that really the Galapagos Finches don't count for what is so often claimed? Yeah, I did. Did you? If so maybe you could post a link to it here so everyone can be updated as to this old matter. Of course then we could apply the same thing to a number of other so-called examples just like Gould did. As I recall, he pointed out, we would end up with a fossil record from start to finish contained in one strata of rock - oh wait, I can't know that, I am a decisional dumbass piece of shit who has no education, after all, the lofty egos that so frequently populate this place said so - silly me!

Troy said: “Well Troy is now playing the “victim” card in his exchange with Stanton. Maybe Troy has forgotten that he, himself, had insinuated some kind of link between Darwin and genocide...” I have not forgotten, but hardly am I hardly one who one insinuates it – there is a link and it is very well documented. Gould, for one, pointed directly at it. With respect to the flood, glacial lake Missoula, and the scab lands: The paper did not mention Darwinist, it is true. However, that there is a very strong historical relationship between uniformitarianism and Darwinism is rather well known – Darwinst defending the one as much as the other. It is not the case that Darwinst ignored the data for thirty years, although they pretty well did so, with anger and lots of name calling, to the matter of the flood via glacial lake Missoula. They ignored catastrophe for much much longer than that – closer to 100 years. Georges Cuvier had the theory of catastrophe, along with indication in the empirical evidence that it took place, prior to the days of Darwin. The idea, with empirical support, goes back at least to 1796. With the advent of beating the piss out of anyone not for Darwin, both in geology and biology, the idea of catastrophe was sh*t upon, whenever it came up (you where a delusional insane Christian if you even mentioned it) ending at long last (for the most part) as the work of Alvarez basically removed all question (late 70's and early 80's). To give the idea that they only went against Bretz would be very misleading indeed, he was but one in a list over 100 years long. However, enough on that for now – after all this is suppose to be about the ID paper. I take it you all reject my thinking that Dembski uses to narrow a definition for the general process of evolution right from the start – am I correct in that thinking or no?

Troy said: As far as numorous speciation events taking place that are documented – yeah, that's pretty common knowledge – the best examples of which are via non-Darwinian methods. However, you there are “ways to achieve speciation besides JUST random mutation + natural selection”. Perhaps you could be so kind as to point out a speciation event where “JUST” random mutation + natural selection achieved it. I personally don't think you can do it, even though you seem to clearly indicate that such can be done.

Erm... so now geologists and geophysicists are "Darwinst"?

Troy I think you've watched the confuse-a-cat sketch once too often.

You still haven't explained what your problem is.

No-one with any education in biology believes that RM+NS is all there is to evolution.

So who are you mad at, exactly?

Troy said: However, enough on that for now – after all this is suppose to be about the ID paper. I take it you all reject my thinking that Dembski uses to narrow a definition for the general process of evolution right from the start – am I correct in that thinking or no?

"I provided you with examples, and you’re just doing some bullshit handwaving. Please explain in detail why each of these examples don’t count as examples of speciation due to random mutation and natural selection."

For one it is not my job to demonstrate that your examples are in fact speciation events, and two that they have properly controlled and accounted for all the diffrent aspects other than mutation which can play a role - like gene drift, symbiotic transfers, etc. - that would be your job.

However, one could point out that your last example is one where the speciation event has not actually taken place and thus is not a qualifying example – so we toss it out. Second, if you really expect me to believe Gnat example covers all the aspects needed to be certain that random mutation alone is the causal agent, that nothing more (other than – ahh – isolation), then you best show where exactly we can see all these controls – I don't know where to find them, but will trust you can point directly to it.

The middle example of cichlids is nothing short of a mess. One can today walk into a fish store, buy two cichlids of two different genus and have them mate and reproduce like there is no tomorrow – I know as I've done it and learned of it from fish breeder. What do you think – should we call it a speciation event? Or is it more likely the icthologist are a bit out to lunch when it comes to naming fish so they can support their evolution claims?

I personally think do to the amounts of renaming going on in the world of cichlids that maybe one can find what once where so-called speciation events no longer are. In addition, still have to control for all the other factors. Perhaps you could point out the example of where all of that is accounted for thereby showing a random mutation example of speciation – for again, I just don't know where to find one.

Troy said: "I provided you with examples, and you’re just doing some bullshit handwaving. Please explain in detail why each of these examples don’t count as examples of speciation due to random mutation and natural selection." For one it is not my job to demonstrate that your examples are in fact speciation events, and two that they have properly controlled and accounted for all the diffrent aspects other than mutation which can play a role - like gene drift, symbiotic transfers, etc. - that would be your job.

So Troy, unless you can give me a documented example of a football game where absolutely no foot ever touched the ball, then I will refuse to believe that the game of football actually exists.

Let me be more clear, you are not making any coherent point at all. Why do you keep demanding examples and then dismissing them? What exactly are you trying to prove? What exactly would you accept as evidence and evidence of what exactly? Who cares what you think and why should they?

Have you read the walking stick paper yet? Have you read all of the literature regarding the speciation in Galapagos finches yet? Do you really think that there is only one species of African cichlid? Do you think that Dembski is contributing anything of any significance at all? Do you think that irreducible complexity is now dead?

Troy said: I am a decisional dumbass piece of shit who has no education

While I appreciate Mark Chu-Carroll spending the time to debunk Dembski's mathematical tap-dancing, I don't get what such arguments against evolution are supposed to prove.

They strike me as analogous to the "aerodynamics shows bumblebees can't fly" folklore. Since bumblebees do fly, any aerodynamic analysis that indicates they can't is obviously flawed.

By the same token, since mountains of evidence from multiple independent fields of study neatly dovetail in support of evolution, any mathematical model that purportedly shows evolution can't happen is obviously flawed.

Troy continues to troll-spin thusly.... For one it is not my job to demonstrate that your examples are in fact speciation events, and two that they have properly controlled and accounted for all the diffrent aspects other than mutation which can play a role - like gene drift, symbiotic transfers, etc. - that would be your job.

...The case is so bad for natural selection with random mutations today that there are scientist arguing that on their own are not even capable of one act of speciation...

So, Dembski concedes that chimps and humans descend from a common ancestor, but not that we evolved from one.

— Dean Wentworth

Dembski seems to be treading perilously close to theistic evolution. Has he ever acknowledged this?

Frank J said: AIUI, Dembski has not committed either way on whether chimps and humans even descend from a common ancestor. So Behe envisions some non-evolutionary in-vivo process (he half-heartedly proposed one in “Darwin’s Black Box”, then backed off), while Dembski, like the more politically correct IDers, leaves the door open for multiple abiogenesis events. My suspicion is that, had Behe joined the movement later he too would have been more noncommittal in public. Gotta serve the big tent, ya know. and In fact Dembski said that ID is no friend of TE. With ID it’s not about what they personally believe - and my own suspicion is that most ID activists privately accept TE - but what the masses need to believe in order to behave properly.

“Troy, sorry to disappoint you, “buddy”. But there isn’t a “very well documented” link whereby Belief in Darwin Equals Hitler. ...... As for glacial lake Missoula, I think you’re confusing Hutton and Lyell with Darwin”

I am not disappointed – not only am I not surprised that there is no documented link where belief in Darwin equals Hitler – in fact I would completely go against any such claim. After demonstrating your taste for completely distorting stuff, which you do very nicely, why would anybody give a damn what you think?

“No-one with any education in biology believes that RM+NS is all there is to evolution.”

yeah – if you say that it is fine – if I say it I am a god damn delusional idiot.

“So who are you mad at, exactly?
I am not mad , although some of the behavior here is certainly worst than most third graders display. I view things which are not in line with a particular take, thus I am labeled a creationist, and idiot, delusional, etc. My view centers on the idea that with the rise of Darwinism there also took place a rise in people incorrectly justifying their hate as scientifically founded based upon Darwin's work. Furthermore, in the elevation of that same work people have worked to suppressed the advancement of science (it has been taboo to go against Darwin). I further claim that that aspect is still with us and should be removed from biology as a field by making people clearly aware of exactly its source. That alone is more than enough to label me a delusional creationist freak – never mind none of it promotes creationism, or anything like it.

“Disagreement about how many distinct species (whatever that is) of cichlids there are does not disprove evolution, Troy.”

Never claimed it did – that's just you making crap up. What I do claim is that if you want to say that random mutation and natural selection where the only factors involved in speciation, then you damn well best control for other factors, like say epigenetic inheritance via prions, to name one – such that you know it did NOT play a role in your speciation event. Again, I am not the one claiming that JUST natural selection and random mutation caused a speciation event – the one who does so claim can show the experiments demonstrating the matter as fact, inclusive of the controls that show it is not any of the many other possible causal agents. I personally don't think they can do it.

“Do you think that Dembski is contributing anything of any significance at all?”
Not that I am aware of. I read some of his stuff, was unimpressed, and never revisited it until today – when again I was unimpressed (for reasons which others seem to ignore ). But in fairness, I am no expert on his work.
“Do you think that irreducible complexity is now dead?”
No, it will be around for some time – nor do I think it will be in the school text books without some major new information.

“You see, you claim that there is no speciation, regardless of mechanism. “

No, that is not what I claim. There certainly are acts of speciation. What I say is that you can't show even one speciation event wherein o”JUST” natural selection and random mutation caused it – not even one. For all the years its been yapped about, we just happen to be dead short on that demonstration. Instead of pretending you have proven me incorrect by making up crap I never said – perhaps you should point to a demonstration.

Troy said: There certainly are acts of speciation. What I say is that you can't show even one speciation event wherein o”JUST” natural selection and random mutation caused it – not even one. For all the years its been yapped about, we just happen to be dead short on that demonstration. Instead of pretending you have proven me incorrect by making up crap I never said – perhaps you should point to a demonstration.

There is scientific consensus that the capacity to synthesize nylonase most probably developed as a single-step mutation that survived because it improved the fitness of the bacteria possessing the mutation. This is seen as a good example of evolution through mutation and natural selection.

So Troy is now saying that it's only natural selection he has a problem with, and only to the extent that he thinks "Darwinists" (whatever he means by that term, which he routinely misspells for reasons obscure to me) believe it to be the only mechanism for evolution. He said "there certainly are acts of speciation".

Well, that gets us a bit further. Speciation happens. But if it is not natural selection among random mutations that is the major engine of speciation, what is?

Come on, Troy, tell us. What causes the speciation you say happens?

And then, could we have some evidence of that?

Troy said: “You mean like how the London Underground Mosquito, Culex molestus, evolved from a population of European Common Gnat, C. pipiens, trapped in the sewersystems of London almost 100 years ago, or how cichlids have undergone and are still undergoing rapid diversification and speciation in the lakes of East Africa, or how the Apple Maggot Fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, is on the verge of speciating because different populations have been genetically isolated from each other because different populations prefer different species of cultivated fruit?” No, that is not what I mean – those examples include something other than “JUST” natural selection and random mutation.

Troy wrote:

"No, that is not what I claim. There certainly are acts of speciation. What I say is that you can’t show even one speciation event wherein o”JUST” natural selection and random mutation caused it – not even one. For all the years its been yapped about, we just happen to be dead short on that demonstration. Instead of pretending you have proven me incorrect by making up crap I never said – perhaps you should point to a demonstration."

First, you are the only one who ever claimed that ONLY random mutation and natural selection are involved in speciation, no one else ever made that demonstrably false claim, Darwin certainly did not. Why construct a strawman if all you want to do is tilt at windmills?

Second, there are documented examples of speciation in the laboratory and in nature where mutation and selection were very important, so Darwin was right. I and others have provided domumented examples that you refuse to acknowledge. If you want to prove that no other forces operate then the burden of proof is on you, no one else.

Third, so what? You still have not made any coherent point whatsoever. I'll make it very simple for you Troy (yes and no answers will suffice):

1) Do random mutations occur?

2) Does natural selection occur?

3) Are mutations and selection important in some speciation events?

4) Are other processes important in some speciation events?

Now if you can answer those simple yes/no questions maybe you might be able to make some point. If not, on one will care what point you are supposedly trying to make.

JFX writes... Troy, I see you are engaged in a back-and-forth with another person in this thread, and therefore may have conveniently ignored or skipped over the nylon-bacteria example I referenced earlier. Here’s that Wiki link again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon_[…]ing_bacteria

stevaroni said: An excellent example, J, particularly since nylon is synthetic, making it really hard to argue pre-loaded genome information. But, it still has the disadvantage of having happened "in the wild", while nobody was watching.

"No-one with any education in biology believes that RM+NS is all there is to evolution." yeah – if you say that it is fine – if I say it I am a god damn delusional idiot.

I'm a bit concerned that Chu-Carroll's piece contains some misuse of the NFL theorems too. E.g. the connection claimed here between (finite?) representations of real numbers and the NFL theorem is surely not correct:

"Unfortunately, most real numbers are undescribable. There is no notation that accurately represents them. The numbers that we can represent in any notation are a miniscule subset of the set of all real numbers. In fact, you can prove this using NFL."

All real numbers can be represented as limits of rational numbers (or as infinite decimal expansions, if you wish). That not all real numbers can be represented using, say, finite decimal expansions has more to do with "size" (cardinality) of the set of real numbers than the NFL theorem.

I think that what Troy is getting at is that people often use "RM + NS" as shorthand for "RM + NS + founder effect + genetic drift + polyploidy + . . . " but I do not understand why he should find this so upsetting and I've no idea where Lake Missoula fits in.

Richard Simons said: I think that what Troy is getting at is that people often use "RM + NS" as shorthand for "RM + NS + founder effect + genetic drift + polyploidy + . . . " but I do not understand why he should find this so upsetting and I've no idea where Lake Missoula fits in.

Richard Simons said: I think that what Troy is getting at is that people often use "RM + NS" as shorthand for "RM + NS + founder effect + genetic drift + polyploidy + . . . " but I do not understand why he should find this so upsetting and I've no idea where Lake Missoula fits in.

Kevin B said: I think he's after a more obscure "he was right, but no-one believed him" reference than Wegener+Continental Drift. The point that Wegener's "theory" was more of a "hypothesis" until the extra data was collected after his death, and that the Lake Missoula chap accumulated the required evidence is probably lost on Troy.

As far as I can tell, the geologists of the day looked at Wegener's hypothesis, and said something like "yes, it all sounds terribly plausible, but history is full of neat ideas that didn't work. Where's the actual evidence?" It took six decades for that evidence to begin to accumulate. When it did, they accepted the idea.

The Lake Missoula business followed much the same course, only there's argument about how many times it happened. The Chixelub Extinction Event seems to have followed a slightly different one, from "where's the evidence?" to "seems reasonable" to "wait a minute, though, here's some different evidence..."

Isn't that the way it's supposed to work?

Dave wrote:

"Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to work?"

No, apparently not. According to Troy, the evil hate filled "darwinist" will contrive some story without any evidence, then all "scientist" will ignore all evidence in order to perpetrate thier scam on an unsuspecting populus. Any dissenters are ridiculed because all "scientist" must cling desperately to the facade of atheism which requires them to sacrifice at the alter of hate. No evidence of any kind will be allowed to challenge the preconceptions of the holy Darwin worshippers.

Hey, that sounds familiar. I wonder where he observed such behavior? Can anyone say PROJECTION? Hint to Troy: the side with over one million publications in peer reviewed journals is the side that values evidence, the side with no real publications is the side that is making up stories.

Meanwhile, Troy has not provided one example for any of his claims and has ignored all examples that he demanded with handwaving and blustering. Time for this guy to put up or shut up. He must really hate it when people don't buy his hate.

Wegener was not the first to propose continental drift. In fact, continental drift made a brief appearance in the 1901 science fiction novel The Purple Cloud.

And Wegener mostly certainly did have evidence in his favor. It was not just the shapes of the land masses on either side of the Atlantic. For example, he pointed out shared species in older strata.

Wegener went beyond just presenting evidence. He gave a physical model of the continents floating on the crust. Unfortunately, it made no sense from a geophysics perspective. Worse, Wegener gave overly high estimates for the speed of the continents, at a rate that was just barely measurable in his day, and found not to happen.

As a result, the basic concept of continental drift suffered from guilt by association with several errors on Wegener's part. It was a slow accumulation of better evidence in the 50s and 60s, culminating in seafloor spreading and its transparently clear geophysical model of plate tectonics that led to the revolution.

There you go: the secret to getting your wild and crazy, totally mocked, scientific idea accepted. Evidence, evidence, and more evidence!

I just wonder where Troy got this idea about modern evolutionary science as The Darwin Monolith. It's... peculiar. And yet familiar.

Maybe he was home-schooled.

fnxtr said:

Troy said: "I provided you with examples, and you’re just doing some bullshit handwaving. Please explain in detail why each of these examples don’t count as examples of speciation due to random mutation and natural selection." For one it is not my job to demonstrate that your examples are in fact speciation events, and two that they have properly controlled and accounted for all the diffrent aspects other than mutation which can play a role - like gene drift, symbiotic transfers, etc. - that would be your job.

No. You disagree, you prove you're right. Disagreement about how many distinct species (whatever that is) of cichlids there are does not disprove evolution, Troy. Again, what are you on about?

“There is scientific consensus that the capacity to synthesize nylonase most probably developed as a single-step mutation that survived because it improved the fitness of the bacteria possessing the mutation. This is seen as a good example of evolution through mutation and natural selection.”

What I ask is that “most probably” turns into “did”.
In this particular example, from the wiki page, the idea of “gene duplication” comes to mind, as does the matter of how no frame shift mutation was involved in the natural occurring discovery. As one reads on one is made aware of plasmid transfer (which is related to horizontal gene transfer).

What I don't read is that a random mutation did it until I get down to the radicals of the creation evolution debate – in fact it rather reads like plasmid transfer and gene duplication are playing cards in this game.

Now I do not have the stuff here at home to run the experiment and discover as to if or if not random mutation was alone in making the change, or if horizontal gene transfer was active at work. However, I do trust that your convictions on this matter are very solid and as such you will be able to point me directly to the study which clearly demonstrates that, for instance, horizontal gene transfer played no role. So if you don't mind, please do so.

william e emba said: Wegener was not the first to propose continental drift. In fact, continental drift made a brief appearance in the 1901 science fiction novel The Purple Cloud. And Wegener mostly certainly did have evidence in his favor. It was not just the shapes of the land masses on either side of the Atlantic. For example, he pointed out shared species in older strata. Wegener went beyond just presenting evidence. He gave a physical model of the continents floating on the crust. Unfortunately, it made no sense from a geophysics perspective. Worse, Wegener gave overly high estimates for the speed of the continents, at a rate that was just barely measurable in his day, and found not to happen. As a result, the basic concept of continental drift suffered from guilt by association with several errors on Wegener's part. It was a slow accumulation of better evidence in the 50s and 60s, culminating in seafloor spreading and its transparently clear geophysical model of plate tectonics that led to the revolution. There you go: the secret to getting your wild and crazy, totally mocked, scientific idea accepted. Evidence, evidence, and more evidence!

There seems to be a recurring theme in Troy's arguments that are similar to other arguments made by anti-evolutionists, Holocaust deniers, new-age medicine proponents, global warming deniers, etc.

" The evil scientific illuminati are repressing the truth"
and
" Evil done in the name of something (or inspired by something) makes that something evil"

the former for why creationism isn't published - the latter for why 'Darwinists' are evil

don't these people have the capacity to reason?
Science relies on evidence - multiple examples above

is rocketry evil because Hitler used v2's?

“Well, that gets us a bit further. Speciation happens. But if it is not natural selection among random mutations that is the major engine of speciation, what is?”

Good question! Polyploidy, gene drift, horizontal gene transfer, exposure to prions and other external factors, symbiotic relations, etc., etc. – the examples seem to grow on a regular basis and I have no reason to think more will not be uncovered.
We do not have a theory at this time which is inclusive of such matters. Take for example the nylon eating beast pointed to earlier – where is the theory that tells us exactly what method it will use to come to eat the nylon prior to exposing it to the nylon? Will it do so via symbiotic relations, or via horizontal gene transfer, etc., etc., etc? To have the ability to answer that question correctly for the over whelming majority of life forms would be strong evidence that we have a “general” theory of worth. Whereas I have no reason to think we will never get there, I don't think we have got there today.

Troy said: “Well, that gets us a bit further. Speciation happens. But if it is not natural selection among random mutations that is the major engine of speciation, what is?” Good question! Polyploidy, gene drift, horizontal gene transfer, exposure to prions and other external factors, symbiotic relations, etc., etc. – the examples seem to grow on a regular basis and I have no reason to think more will not be uncovered. We do not have a theory at this time which is inclusive of such matters. Take for example the nylon eating beast pointed to earlier – where is the theory that tells us exactly what method it will use to come to eat the nylon prior to exposing it to the nylon? Will it do so via symbiotic relations, or via horizontal gene transfer, etc., etc., etc? To have the ability to answer that question correctly for the over whelming majority of life forms would be strong evidence that we have a “general” theory of worth. Whereas I have no reason to think we will never get there, I don't think we have got there today.

“The point that Wegener’s “theory” was more of a “hypothesis” until the extra data was collected after his death, and that the Lake Missoula chap accumulated the required evidence is probably lost on Troy.”

Oh no sir – in fact it is very much a point and very much worth looking at. Science very often is sure of some things prior to actually giving solid demonstration of the fact. He earth going around the sun, for example, was very well excepted long before we could measure parallax to nearby stars (which rather strongly demonstrates the fact). More than one atom was believed to be around prior to its actual discovery because of the nature of the periodic table. A great many examples of this type can be found in the history of science as well as presently.

What is odd is not the occurrence of such things, but the rejection of them when there is such strong evidence for them (like in the case of the flood). When there is a case of very strong scientific evidence in favor of the said claim, and a very strong repulsion of the idea – one smells a crusade, not science. When people who are familiar with the evidence and remain silent for fear of their job while others use abusive words to degrade the person with the empirical evidence, one smells a crusade, not science.

Take for example the nylon eating beast pointed to earlier – where is the theory that tells us exactly what method it will use to come to eat the nylon prior to exposing it to the nylon? Will it do so via symbiotic relations, or via horizontal gene transfer, etc., etc., etc? To have the ability to answer that question correctly for the over whelming majority of life forms would be strong evidence that we have a “general” theory of worth. Whereas I have no reason to think we will never get there, I don’t think we have got there today.

Troy said: “The point that Wegener’s “theory” was more of a “hypothesis” until the extra data was collected after his death, and that the Lake Missoula chap accumulated the required evidence is probably lost on Troy.” Oh no sir – in fact it is very much a point and very much worth looking at. Science very often is sure of some things prior to actually giving solid demonstration of the fact. He earth going around the sun, for example, was very well excepted long before we could measure parallax to nearby stars (which rather strongly demonstrates the fact). More than one atom was believed to be around prior to its actual discovery because of the nature of the periodic table. A great many examples of this type can be found in the history of science as well as presently. What is odd is not the occurrence of such things, but the rejection of them when there is such strong evidence for them (like in the case of the flood). When there is a case of very strong scientific evidence in favor of the said claim, and a very strong repulsion of the idea – one smells a crusade, not science. When people who are familiar with the evidence and remain silent for fear of their job while others use abusive words to degrade the person with the empirical evidence, one smells a crusade, not science.

Richard Simons said: Given that there is a large element of chance in determining where novel enzymes etc come from, whether they arise through mutations, transfer from some other organism, etc, I think it extremely unlikely that there will ever be a means of making general predictions about the source of novelty. Agreed, in specific cases it may be possible to make reasonable predictions, for example if a useful compound is absent in one bacterium but present in another in the same environment, then horizontal gene transfer becomes more likely. But in general terms, I don’t see it occurring. It is hard enough to even predict which compound would be of benefit. Why is the inability to make a detailed prediction important to accepting the theory?

stevaroni said: Well, researchers then cultured Pseudomonas aeruginosa in nylon-enriched medium, and were able to produce a mutant strain that had its own unique version of nylonase.

Troy wrote:

"Polyploidy, gene drift, horizontal gene transfer, exposure to prions and other external factors, symbiotic relations, etc., etc. – the examples seem to grow on a regular basis and I have no reason to think more will not be uncovered. We do not have a theory at this time which is inclusive of such matters."

Right. We have no idea that any of these things, or literally hundreds more, even exist. There is not an entire literatiure on each and every one of these things, and hundreds more. Let's face it Troy, you have no point to make here at all. If we know nothing about any of these things, how are you aware of them? If you are not aware of their importance in evolution, why do you assume that no one else is? Why does anyone need to predict exactly what will happen at any instant in order for a theory to be considered correct? If we did know about every single mechanism, would Darwin still equal athesim still equal hate?

By the way, I believe that we understand considerably more about mutation and selection than you can possibly imagine. Here is a good reference:

Genetics 160:823-832 (2002)

It describes the mechanisms by which beneficial mutations arise that confer antibiotic resistance in bacteria. The mechanisms were documented in the laboratory, then predictions were made aboutevents that would occur in nature. the predictions were confirmed from studies of natural populations. Such studies help researchers to predict important events that affect public health. Of course you never bothered to read the walking stick paper so I know you will not read this paper either.

Could unexpected rare events occur, sure. Do we know every possible thing that could occur, obviously not. Do you think that we should just give up and stop studying evolution or should we continue to make more refined predictions? Do you have any real point to make or are you just going to continue claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is full of hate? Do you really think that the "you don't know everything so I don't have to believe anything you say" argument is valid?

“Let’s assume that, maybe, just maybe, delusional twit Troy is correct in his breathtaking inanity. If he is correct, then what will ensue is the prospect of a better, more inclusive, “Expanded Modern Synthesis” which will have at its core, the Darwin - Wallace Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection.”

better yet just outright say I am wrong and back it up with proof – an example of your general theory correctly predicting what was called for would do very nicely. Of course in its absence, do to the fact that you have no such theory, the substance of a modern crusade will have to do – you know, name calling and the likes.
P.S. - don't forget to credit Spencer, after all he is the one they nominated for a Nobel prize.

“Given that there is a large element of chance in determining where novel enzymes etc come from, whether they arise through mutations, transfer from some other organism, etc, I think it extremely unlikely that there will ever be a means of making general predictions about the source of novelty.”

Perhaps not, but I am not so sure about “extremely unlikely” - we are only at the beginning of this road of understanding, who is to say what general principles are yet to be uncovered.

“Your latest comment demonstrates how you don’t understand anything about the nature of science. Wegener’s continental drift hypothesis was rejected - inspite of substantial evidence supporting it - simply because there was no credible, confirmable mechanism for it.....”

You may of had some point had I anything to do with pointing to Wegener as an example – but, given that I didn't........ahh - why bother taking that one up here (I may touch on it later though)

“It’s akin to rejecting plate tectonics because geologists are unable to predict exactly when and where a particular earthquake will occur.”

No – for that analogy to be slightly closer you would have to word it like this: “It’s akin to rejecting plate tectonics because geologists are unable to predict “how” a particular earthquake will occur” - and I am pretty sure they somewhat have that covered by their general theory. For it to be all the way useful, however, you would have to think of it this way - “if there was no general theory about that which governs earthquakes, there would be no general theory to reject, even though we all know there are earth quakes.”

“Right. We have no idea that any of these things, or literally hundreds more, even exist ........”

Again, not remotely close to what I said or implied. I see you reference a genetics book – does it have examples of controlled states wherein it has been demonstrated that only selection and random mutation lead to a speciation event???

Troy said: “Let’s assume that, maybe, just maybe, delusional twit Troy is correct in his breathtaking inanity. If he is correct, then what will ensue is the prospect of a better, more inclusive, “Expanded Modern Synthesis” which will have at its core, the Darwin - Wallace Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection.” better yet just outright say I am wrong and back it up with proof – an example of your general theory correctly predicting what was called for would do very nicely. Of course in its absence, do to the fact that you have no such theory, the substance of a modern crusade will have to do – you know, name calling and the likes. P.S. - don't forget to credit Spencer, after all he is the one they nominated for a Nobel prize. “Given that there is a large element of chance in determining where novel enzymes etc come from, whether they arise through mutations, transfer from some other organism, etc, I think it extremely unlikely that there will ever be a means of making general predictions about the source of novelty.” Perhaps not, but I am not so sure about “extremely unlikely” - we are only at the beginning of this road of understanding, who is to say what general principles are yet to be uncovered. “Your latest comment demonstrates how you don’t understand anything about the nature of science. Wegener’s continental drift hypothesis was rejected - inspite of substantial evidence supporting it - simply because there was no credible, confirmable mechanism for it.....” You may of had some point had I anything to do with pointing to Wegener as an example – but, given that I didn't........ahh - why bother taking that one up here (I may touch on it later though) “It’s akin to rejecting plate tectonics because geologists are unable to predict exactly when and where a particular earthquake will occur.” No – for that analogy to be slightly closer you would have to word it like this: “It’s akin to rejecting plate tectonics because geologists are unable to predict “how” a particular earthquake will occur” - and I am pretty sure they somewhat have that covered by their general theory. For it to be all the way useful, however, you would have to think of it this way - “if there was no general theory about that which governs earthquakes, there would be no general theory to reject, even though we all know there are earth quakes.” “Right. We have no idea that any of these things, or literally hundreds more, even exist ........” Again, not remotely close to what I said or implied. I see you reference a genetics book – does it have examples of controlled states wherein it has been demonstrated that only selection and random mutation lead to a speciation event???

Troy wrote: Polyploidy, gene drift, horizontal gene transfer, exposure to prions and other external factors, symbiotic relations, etc., etc. – the examples seem to grow on a regular basis and I have no reason to think more will not be uncovered. We do not have a theory at this time which is inclusive of such matters.

responding to Richard Simons comment, I said: It’s akin to rejecting plate tectonics because geologists are unable to predict exactly when and where a particular earthquake will occur.

responding to my above comment, Troy said: No – for that analogy to be slightly closer you would have to word it like this: “It’s akin to rejecting plate tectonics because geologists are unable to predict “how” a particular earthquake will occur” - and I am pretty sure they somewhat have that covered by their general theory. For it to be all the way useful, however, you would have to think of it this way - “if there was no general theory about that which governs earthquakes, there would be no general theory to reject, even though we all know there are earth quakes.”

Troy,

For your information, Genetics is a journal, you know a real peer reviewed scientific journal. Not only did you not bother to read it, you don't even know what it is. How can you possibly know anything at all about the modern field of genetics when you are not even aware of the most basic journal in the field?

My point, in case you missed it, was that we do indeed understand all of the things you mentioned very well. They have all been successfully incorporated into the modern theory of evolution. If the theory doesn't make predictions that are good enough for you, then by all means, feel free to present a superior alternative. If you have none, then kindly piss off and quit your whining.

No – for that analogy to be appropriate you would have to word it like this: “It’s akin to rejecting plate tectonics because geologists are unable to predict “how” a particular earthquake will occur, even though they have much detailed knowledge about the many mechanisms that cause earthquakes and you have no viable alternative theory”

What if we could tell you exactly what mutations would occur in every organism? What if we could tell you exactly how the environment would change and what selection pressures the envirnoment would exert? What if we could predict exactly what adaptations and what species would be produced in the next one thousand years? Would Darwin still equal atheism? Would atheism still equal hate? Would you still demand more details? Well, we don't have to match your pathetic level of ... oh never mind.

Troy said: “You mean like how the London Underground Mosquito, Culex molestus, evolved from a population of European Common Gnat, C. pipiens, trapped in the sewersystems of London almost 100 years ago, or how cichlids have undergone and are still undergoing rapid diversification and speciation in the lakes of East Africa, or how the Apple Maggot Fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, is on the verge of speciating because different populations have been genetically isolated from each other because different populations prefer different species of cultivated fruit?” No, that is not what I mean – those examples include something other than “JUST” natural selection and random mutation.

Your theory leads only to atheism and hate.

No it doesn't.

Well you have no theory then.

Really? How do you explain the statistically significant correlation between the shapes of coast of South America and the coast of Africa?

Well, you can't prove that it's contintental drift because you can't predict the exact time of the next earthquake.

We do know the basic processes involved and the factors that influence the timing of the events. How do you explain the geopgraphic distribution of plant and animal species shared between South American and Africa?

I can't. But contintental drift can't be true because you can't accurately predict the exact time of the next earthquake.

We can predict a time interval during which the probability of the next event is statistically likely. How do you explain the reversals in the earth's magnetic field that are recored at the mid-Atlantic trench?

I haven't got a clue. But since you can't predict the exact minute of the next earthquake I still don't have to believe in contintental drift.

Troy said: Science very often is sure of some things prior to actually giving solid demonstration of the fact. [T]He earth going around the sun, for example, was very well excepted long before we could measure parallax to nearby stars (which rather strongly demonstrates the fact).