A peer-reviewed article that supports ID ... or something else (part 2)

The key contention of ID is that design in nature, and in biology in particular, is detectable.

Joe wrote: "William Dembski has now replied at his Uncommon Descent blog to these comments."

It should be noted that there were no comments allowed on Dembski's reply posted last night. And he cut off comments after only nine comments on his previous blog entry on this topic on August 19.

Are we allowed to know who were the peers who purportedly reviewed this article? Or is this another Meyer/Sternberg scam?

I am not sure that fully understand all of this. But it seems clear that the adaptive landscape is not all that smooth. Many creatures have gone extinct. While we have seen a great deal of adaptation and an increase in variety of living creatures, it is by no means true that every branch has survived.

George writes... I am not sure that fully understand all of this. But it seems clear that the adaptive landscape is not all that smooth.

I think that you have highlighted Dembski's issue. I'm not sure that he understands it or is being purposefully oblique.
He wants to say that evolution is impossible and that we all came about by a number of discrete events (poofs) brought about by God. However, all he is showing is that the fitness landscape is amenable to evolution.

I see other people say that one characteristic of committed creationists is the inability to understand analogies and models. I wonder if this is Dembskis problem rather than outright dishonesty.

The key contention of ID is that design in nature, and in biology in particular, is detectable.

COI does not preclude better-than-average performance on a specific problem class [8], [18], [20], [31], [35], [43]. For instance, when choosing the best k of n features for a classification problem, hill-climbing approaches are much less effective than branch-and-bound approaches [25]. Hill-climbing algorithms require a smooth fitness surface uncharacteristic of the feature-selection problem. This simple insight when smooth fitness functions are appropriate constitutes knowledge about the search solution; moreover, utilizing this knowledge injects information into the search. Likewise, the ability to eliminate large regions of the search space in branch-and-bound algorithms supplies problem-specific information. In these examples, the information source is obvious. In other instances, it can be more subtle.

Michael J said: I think that you have highlighted Dembski's issue. I'm not sure that he understands it or is being purposefully oblique. He wants to say that evolution is impossible and that we all came about by a number of discrete events (poofs) brought about by God. However, all he is showing is that the fitness landscape is amenable to evolution. I see other people say that one characteristic of committed creationists is the inability to understand analogies and models. I wonder if this is Dembskis problem rather than outright dishonesty.

George said: Many creatures have gone extinct.

Bill wrote:

"The key contention of ID is that design in nature, and in biology in particular, is detectable. Evolutionary informatics, by looking at the information requirements of evolutionary processes, points to information sources beyond evolution and thus, indirectly, to a designer."

RIght, but see the thing is that your paper doesn't do this. All the paper shows is that evolution will not occur without an environment, a trivial result at best. It also seems to show that evolution can occur in the absence of strong selection, but that doesn't preclude evolution from occuring.

The paper most cetrtainly does not point to any information sources beyond evolution and thus it does not point to a designer. Even if it did point to some other information source, that hardly settles the question of what that source might be.

The funny thing is that if this guy ever does succeed in proving the existence of God, no real person of faith would be happy about it.

Is "Conservation of Information" an actual, well-established principle, or is this just more wankery from WAD?

Paul I think your assertion about wastefulness is wrong. The important thing philosophically would seem to be the survival of life, not which particular form it happened to be in. Would the world somehow be more perfect if all (or most) species were still alive each in small populations (abiotic limitations of the biosphere)?

Dave C said: Is "Conservation of Information" an actual, well-established principle, or is this just more wankery from WAD?

Mike Elzinga said:

Dave C said: Is "Conservation of Information" an actual, well-established principle, or is this just more wankery from WAD?

It would be the latter. Dembski made up the term but it has no use in the scientific community. You can even get some idea of the issues involved in its use when even Dembski uses examples in this paper under discussion in which he calculates what the “information” would be in English. What would that calculation be in German? How about Chinese? Dolphin? Chicken? Conserved quantities in physics do not depend on the language. Even worse has been the conflation of “information” with entropy and then claiming that “information” is conserved. Entropy is not conserved. Conflation and confusion are pretty much the game with ID.

James F said: William Dembski wrote:

The key contention of ID is that design in nature, and in biology in particular, is detectable.

And since there is no testable mechanism for how this design is introduced, let alone how to quantify it, it falls outside of the realm of science. Methodological supernaturalism is what really distinguishes ID.

Dave C said: Is "Conservation of Information" an actual, well-established principle, or is this just more wankery from WAD?

George: I am not sure that fully understand all of this. But it seems clear that the adaptive landscape is not all that smooth. Many creatures have gone extinct.

DS said: RIght, but see the thing is that your paper doesn't do this. All the paper shows is that evolution will not occur without an environment, a trivial result at best. It also seems to show that evolution can occur in the absence of strong selection, but that doesn't preclude evolution from occuring. The paper most cetrtainly does not point to any information sources beyond evolution and thus it does not point to a designer. Even if it did point to some other information source, that hardly settles the question of what that source might be. The funny thing is that if this guy ever does succeed in proving the existence of God, no real person of faith would be happy about it.

Dembski: Evolutionary informatics, by looking at the information requirements of evolutionary processes, points to information sources beyond evolution and thus, indirectly, to a designer.

Dembski: Theistic evoluton....snip....required for biological complexity internally, without any outside source of information. The results by Marks and me are showing that this cannot be the case.

Again, this is in reference to an artificial and controlled environment, hence the submission of the paper to an engineering journal. The "peer review" is for the validity of the paper on engineering, not biology. The distinctions of the "landscape" are artificial and--for the needs of information retrieval--contrived. Dr. Dembski may argue all he wishes that information existed before it was information ("smoothness"), but now we are back to the chicken and the egg.

Out of curiosity I looked up "Conservation of Information." It's something Dr. Dembski created as part of his "Specified Complexity," (i.e. some things are so complex they call for a Creator). He has an article about it in Wikipedia.

This Specified Complexity was thoroughly trashed in the Dover trial, where the plaintiffs demonstrated that no matter how complex something was in nature, it was still an example of evolution in action.

Because of the number of times they repeat the point in their paper, it seems to me that D&M would like to claim that solutions cannot occur without the input of “intelligence”.

Paul Burnett said: Joe wrote: "William Dembski has now replied at his Uncommon Descent blog to these comments." It should be noted that there were no comments allowed on Dembski's reply posted last night. And he cut off comments after only nine comments on his previous blog entry on this topic on August 19. Are we allowed to know who were the peers who purportedly reviewed this article? Or is this another Meyer/Sternberg scam?

raven said: Dembski seems to be making claims beyond his paper. The information source beyond "evolution" is the environment aka fitness landscape. How the Designer, jesus, sneaks in here is not explained. Not seeing how the environment or fitness landscape can be confused with a deity.

Hm. For "algorithm" above, read "process."

James F said: William Dembski wrote:

The key contention of ID is that design in nature, and in biology in particular, is detectable.

And since there is no testable mechanism for how this design is introduced, let alone how to quantify it, it falls outside of the realm of science.

Mike Elzinga said: So it is not clear to me what D&M are arguing here. But it is true that, at the level of complex organic systems existing within the energy ranges of liquid water, the potential wells among which a system slips and slides are shallow and close together. ... For living organisms in a changing environment, changes in that environment have frequently been small enough that the variability in a population of organisms overlaps the range of shift in the “potential wells” from the old environment to the new. So the mean of the population characteristics can easily slip to a nearby state. ...

Joe Felsenstein said: then when you plot population mean fitness against the gene frequencies of alleles A and a you get two peaks with a valley in between.

From the viewpoint of algorithmic information theory, evolutionary algorithms work because the information content of the fitness landscape is low. If the fitness function is very weakly correlated, i.e., approximating the Pure Noise condition, then hill-climbing or search-by-mutation-and-selection won't do much better than random sampling. But a function of this type has high Kolmogorov-Chaitin information: random sequences are incompressible. A fitness function which is random in the Martin-Loef sense is exactly the kind of landscape which stymies a search algorithm.

Dembski and Marks are basically doing a kludgy and vague version of fitness landscape analysis. Their "active information" (which I'm not sure should even be called "information", being the difference between surprisals) is a functional of the algorithm being evaluated and the fitness function which is being optimized. It mixes up the "hardness" of the fitness function with the complexity of the algorithm used to optimize it; Dembski and Marks then reify this number into something which can be "hidden" or "smuggled".

Joe Felsenstein said: I am not sure how closely adaptive peaks can correspond to the potential wells in molecular systems. Generally what we are talking about when we use the phrase is plots of population fitness against gene frequencies. If you have two genes, each with two alleles, and it happens that genotypes AABB and aabb have high fitness, with the other double homozygotes AAbb and aaBB having lower fitness, and the various heterozygotes in between, then when you plot population mean fitness against the gene frequencies of alleles A and a you get two peaks with a valley in between. But for each genotype all this comes from lots of lots of molecules bouncing in and out of potential wells, so I am not sure I can get the one surface from the other. Perhaps I'm being unimaginative.

This selective/adaptive landscape stuff is fine, but I think people sometimes lose sight of the trees for the wood. Is Dembski really saying that the "Designer" (PICC) has to SPECIFY a selective landscape, such that that for gazelles to avoid cheetahs, one useful strategy might be that they could be FASTER? Or for cheetahs to catch gazelles, THEY need to be faster in turn?

Gee, thanks Mr Pixie - that is most helpful. Thankyou for defining that information-laden selective landscape that permits such a counter-intuitive and para-Darwinian survival strategy to be available to the respective genepools of gazelledom and cheetahdom.

Yet, ALL of the selective landscape effectively boils down to such local conditions - which may change from time to time, and at the end of the day, all that is simply mathematical. Perhaps Dembski also thinks that the Pixie can change the Mandelbrot set, or re-define Pi.

In my younger years, inanity irritated me, but now I appreciate that some people can elevate it to an art form of the highest virtuosity.

Correct me if I'm wrong...

If nature were designed the way Dembski thinks it is, then wouldn't it be impossible to detect? After all, if his deity designed everything, then everything was designed.

It follows, therefore, that there's no way of detecting non-design, because there's no non-design to detect, and therefore no way of detecting design, because there's nothing to compare the answer with, except for blindly saying "yes".

If the information in something has to be explained by design, then I guess it must be Gods all the way down.

Kaz Dragon said: If nature were designed the way Dembski thinks it is, then wouldn't it be impossible to detect? After all, if his deity designed everything, then everything was designed. It follows, therefore, that there's no way of detecting non-design, because there's no non-design to detect, and therefore no way of detecting design, because there's nothing to compare the answer with, except for blindly saying "yes".

It follows, therefore, that there’s no way of detecting non-design

Well, whether or not Dembski is capable of detecting evidence of, or is capable of motivating himself to detect evidence of GOD/The Great Pumpkin/The Intelligent Designer is a moot point, as trying to demonstrate how to detect design is one of those "pathetic levels of detail" that Dembski arrogantly refuses to provide.

Blake Stacey said: From the viewpoint of algorithmic information theory, evolutionary algorithms work because the information content of the fitness landscape is low. If the fitness function is very weakly correlated, i.e., approximating the Pure Noise condition, then hill-climbing or search-by-mutation-and-selection won't do much better than random sampling. But a function of this type has high Kolmogorov-Chaitin information: random sequences are incompressible. A fitness function which is random in the Martin-Loef sense is exactly the kind of landscape which stymies a search algorithm. Dembski and Marks are basically doing a kludgy and vague version of fitness landscape analysis. Their "active information" (which I'm not sure should even be called "information", being the difference between surprisals) is a functional of the algorithm being evaluated and the fitness function which is being optimized. It mixes up the "hardness" of the fitness function with the complexity of the algorithm used to optimize it; Dembski and Marks then reify this number into something which can be "hidden" or "smuggled".

RBH said: Someone -- Dawkins, maybe? -- suggested that the genome of a species is a palimpsest recording the prior selective environments that species' ancestors lived in.

raven said: Dembski seems to be making claims beyond his paper. The information source beyond "evolution" is the environment aka fitness landscape. How the Designer, jesus, sneaks in here is not explained. Not seeing how the environment or fitness landscape can be confused with a deity.

This claim looks like a combination of bafflegab and lying. Nothing Dembski hasn’t been doing for 20 years.

RBH wrote:

"Someone – Dawkins, maybe? – suggested that the genome of a species is a palimpsest recording the prior selective environments that species’ ancestors lived in."

Exactly. Every evolutionary biologist knows this. The genomes of species and individuals contain an historical record of past mutations, selection pressures, drift, hybridization, etc. That is why genetic markers are so useful. That is how we can reconstruct the past history of life on earth using genetic data. There is no need for any outside source of information and no conservation of information. It is just a consequence of how evolution works, period.

For anyone who is interested, National Geographic is about to air a special entitled "Your Family Tree", in which they reveal the results of genetic analysis of thousands of humans. Using this type of data, one can determine the closest living relative of humans, the time since divergence, the place of origin of modern humans and the major migrations that have occured since that origin. All of this information, and much more, is stored in human genomes courtesy of evolution, no diety required.

Dawkin's wrote:

"When we learn to read it properly, the DNA of a dolphin may one day confirm what we already know from the telltale giveaways in its anatomy and physiology: that its ancestors once lived on dry land."

And indeed, there is information in the pattern of SINE insertions in Cetaceans that confirms that they are indeniably descended from terrestrial ancestors. And this result is consistent with every other genetic data set, as well as the developmental and palentolgical data. No creationist has ever given an adequate explanation for this evidence.

Perhaps Dr. Dr. Dembski would like to explain this information and where it came from. He once admitted to me that he found the argument of palgarized errors convincing. If the information comes from the environment then macroevolution must be true. If the information comes from God, was she lying?

“Someone – Dawkins, maybe? – suggested that the genome of a species is a palimpsest recording the prior selective environments that species’ ancestors lived in.”

So in other words, Dembski is just confirming Dawkins' evolutionist views.
Can someone who can post to Uncommon Descent point that out in the next thread that comes up over there?

RBH said: Someone -- Dawkins, maybe? -- suggested that the genome of a species is a palimpsest recording the prior selective environments that species' ancestors lived in.

I see other people say that one characteristic of committed creationists is the inability to understand analogies and models. I wonder if this is Dembskis problem rather than outright dishonesty.

— Michael J

Frank J said: I'd agree if you were talking about FL or Ray Martinez, but not Dembski. It's easier for me to believe that Kent Hovind just forgot to pay his taxes.

In physics, a moving particle attracted to a potential well has a higher probability of being found in the vicinity of that well. Thus, one way to measure the depth of the well is to measure the frequency with which one finds such particles in the vicinity of that well.

Henry J said: Isn't that more or less the definition of "well" in this context?

Evolution is Survival of the Adequate. It doesn't aim at "the target": rather populations undergoing (Darwinian) evolution seem to wander around grabbing what's locally avaiable. Sometimes nothing is good enough and a population goes extinct.

Most of ID seems to be based on the idea that "what currently exists" was the target of "what used to be." Not all roads lead to Rome, but they all go Somewhere.

Has Dembski, one of probably the two leading proponents of ID, really now retreated to a claim that *all* natural selection can do is transfer information from the environment? Is that not a staggering admission of defeat? How does that say anything at all about the truth or otherwise of evolutionary theory, which Dembski once claimed would be dead within 10 years?

Ginger Yellow said: Has Dembski, one of probably the two leading proponents of ID, really now retreated to a claim that *all* natural selection can do is transfer information from the environment? Is that not a staggering admission of defeat? How does that say anything at all about the truth or otherwise of evolutionary theory, which Dembski once claimed would be dead within 10 years?

Joe Felsenstein said:

Ginger Yellow said: Has Dembski, one of probably the two leading proponents of ID, really now retreated to a claim that *all* natural selection can do is transfer information from the environment? Is that not a staggering admission of defeat? How does that say anything at all about the truth or otherwise of evolutionary theory, which Dembski once claimed would be dead within 10 years?

That's the basic conclusion of this thread and its earlier one ... the new “pro-ID” papers admit that natural selection can put information into the genome. In light of Dembski's previous arguments a staggering admission.

Mike Elzinga said:

Dave C said: Is "Conservation of Information" an actual, well-established principle, or is this just more wankery from WAD?

It would be the latter. Dembski made up the term but it has no use in the scientific community. You can even get some idea of the issues involved in its use when even Dembski uses examples in this paper under discussion in which he calculates what the “information” would be in English. What would that calculation be in German? How about Chinese? Dolphin? Chicken? Conserved quantities in physics do not depend on the language. Even worse has been the conflation of “information” with entropy and then claiming that “information” is conserved. Entropy is not conserved. Conflation and confusion are pretty much the game with ID.

F. Random Mutation In random mutation, the active information comes from the following sources. 1) Choosing the most fit among mutated possibilities. The active information comes from knowledge of the fitness. 2) As is the case of prolonged random search, in the sheer number of offspring. In the extreme, if the number of offspring is equal to the cardinality of the search space and all different, a successful search can be guaranteed. We now offer examples of measuring the active information for these sources of mutation-based search procedures. 1) Choosing the Fittest of a Number of Mutated Offspring: In evolutionary search, a large number of offspring is often generated, and the more fit offspring are selected for the next generation. When some offspring are correctly announced as more fit than others, external knowledge is being applied to the search, giving rise to active information. As with the child’s game of finding a hidden object, we are being told, with respect to the solution, whether we are getting “colder” or “warmer” to the target.

Dembski and Marks do not actually critique the Weasel program in their article. They merely analyze it. We are supposed to think that, because they demonstrate that the program has positive active information with respect to the problem it addresses, Dawkins "smuggled in" the information. Dawkins actually got information by observing life, and abstracted what he observed in a simple model.

For more on this, see my comment at NewScientist. I think it's not half-bad.

Tom English said: When I wrote in 1995 of "conservation of information" in association with "no free lunch" in search, I had just begun studying information theory. "Conservation of [Shannon] entropy" would have been better.

Mike Elzinga said: Again, here is the relevant section. I have highlighted D&M’s apparent hedge.

F. Random Mutation In random mutation, the active information comes from the following sources. 1) Choosing the most fit among mutated possibilities. The active information comes from knowledge of the fitness. 2) As is the case of prolonged random search, in the sheer number of offspring. In the extreme, if the number of offspring is equal to the cardinality of the search space and all different, a successful search can be guaranteed. We now offer examples of measuring the active information for these sources of mutation-based search procedures. 1) Choosing the Fittest of a Number of Mutated Offspring: In evolutionary search, a large number of offspring is often generated, and the more fit offspring are selected for the next generation. When some offspring are correctly announced as more fit than others, external knowledge is being applied to the search, giving rise to active information. As with the child’s game of finding a hidden object, we are being told, with respect to the solution, whether we are getting “colder” or “warmer” to the target.

Tom English said: Dembski and Marks do not actually critique the Weasel program in their article. They merely analyze it. We are supposed to think that, because they demonstrate that the program has positive active information with respect to the problem it addresses, Dawkins "smuggled in" the information. Dawkins actually got information by observing life, and abstracted what he observed in a simple model. For more on this, see my comment at NewScientist. I think it's not half-bad.

raven said: Where we look, we see that in the DNA and in embryonic development. Chickens can be coaxed into producing teeth by mutation or adding the appropiate inducer tissue. Whales are sometimes born with legs, humans with tails or covered with fur, atavisms. The human genome is 5% defective retroviruses. I've always thought that these are the wreckage of titantic battles in the past. During development, whales produce typical mammalian limb buds. Which then regress. Humans during embyogenesis produce a yolk sac. The vitelligens that should fill it up no longer exist. Our distant ancestors laid eggs! Evolution explains these easily, creationism just looks at them as requirements for manufacturing a new set of lies.

Matt G said: One of my favorite arguments against ID is the origin of human odor receptors. Nearly all mouse odor receptor genes (~1200) are functional, while nearly 75% of human odor receptor genes are pseudogenes. Why would an intelligent designer give us broken genes?

Tom English said: When I wrote in 1995 of "conservation of information" in association with "no free lunch" in search, I had just begun studying information theory. "Conservation of [Shannon] entropy" would have been better.

If you say that a designer would not do this or that, they furiously deny that we can predict what a designer would do. In saying that, of course they remove the Designer hypothesis from being a scientific one, as it would then be prediction-free. But then they turn around and announce a prediction with respect to junk DNA.

Mike Elzinga said: Another example: “Horse drawn vehicles”. Did anyone think of a bunch of goofy-looking cartoon horses in artists garb and paraphernalia sitting by the roadside drawing pictures of passing cars and trucks?

Wheels said: So in other words, Dembski is just confirming Dawkins' evolutionist views. Can someone who can post to Uncommon Descent point that out in the next thread that comes up over there?

Wheels said: Give it to me straight, doc, am I crazy?

Paul Burnett said: Dembski just posted another gloating thread ( http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-argument-just-keeps-rumbling-on/ ) that more and more peer-reviewed articles are being published and the next Judge Jones will not be able to say that there aren't any at the next Dover trial. But he turned off comments.

Mike Elzinga said:

Wheels said: Give it to me straight, doc, am I crazy?

Jahwohl! Und for dat, you vil be placed in ze schtrait zhaket und be drawn und kvortered.

Paul Burnett said: Dembski just posted another gloating thread ( http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-argument-just-keeps-rumbling-on/ ) that more and more peer-reviewed articles are being published and the next Judge Jones will not be able to say that there aren't any at the next Dover trial. But he turned off comments.

Henry J said: Hey, is that Siegfried of KAOS?

Mike Elzinga said:

Wheels said: Give it to me straight, doc, am I crazy?

Jahwohl! Und for dat, you vil be placed in ze schtrait zhaket und be drawn und kvortered.

My impression from the comments to Prof. Felsenstein's two recent blog posts is that not everyone has appreciated that Dembski and Marks use the word 'information' as a synonym for '(im)probability'. Information, for Dembski and Marks, is merely probability measured in different units, in the same way that 0.91 meters is an alternative way to express 1 yard. Exactly which kind (im)probability that is intended depends on context. Active information, for instance, is the probability of a search algorithm being successful relative to the probability of random sampling being successful (a ratio of two probabilities). Because the word 'information' carries other connotations in other contexts and tends to be talked about in different ways than probability, it is very easy to fall into the trap of reifying Dembski and Marks' concept of information or of seeking a relation to Shannon information or Kolmogorov complexity.

The sheer triviality of Dembski and Marks' article becomes clear when 'probability/improbability/probability ratio' is substituted for the word 'information'. Behind the talk about information is just the idea that deviations from uniform probability distributions can only be explained with reference to a programmer or God.

Paul Burnett said:

Wheels said: So in other words, Dembski is just confirming Dawkins' evolutionist views. Can someone who can post to Uncommon Descent point that out in the next thread that comes up over there?

Dembski just posted another gloating thread ( http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-argument-just-keeps-rumbling-on/ ) that more and more peer-reviewed articles are being published and the next Judge Jones will not be able to say that there aren't any at the next Dover trial. But he turned off comments.

Paul Burnett said: Dembski just posted another gloating thread ( http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-argument-just-keeps-rumbling-on/ ) that more and more peer-reviewed articles are being published and the next Judge Jones will not be able to say that there aren't any at the next Dover trial. But he turned off comments.

Dembski just posted another gloating thread {cut} that more and more peer-reviewed articles are being published and the next Judge Jones will not be able to say that there aren’t any at the next Dover trial. But he turned off comments.

William Dembski: "The implications of intelligent design are radical in the true sense of this much overused word. The question posed by intelligent design is not how we should do science and theology in light of the triumph of Enlightenment rationalism and scientific naturalism. The question is rather how we should do science and theology in light of the impending collapse of Enlightenment rationalism and scientific naturalism. These ideologies are on the way out…because they are bankrupt." Dembski’s goal is to destroy Western civilization. The Enlightenment and science are the basis of the 21st century West, including the leader, the USA. To set up another unworkable hell on earth theocracy.

Matt G said: Will the horses be drawing him?

tom w said: My impression from the comments to Prof. Felsenstein's two recent blog posts is that not everyone has appreciated that Dembski and Marks use the word 'information' as a synonym for '(im)probability'. Information, for Dembski and Marks, is merely probability measured in different units, in the same way that 0.91 meters is an alternative way to express 1 yard.

Dembski blathers: "Nothing much has changed when a camel first starts sticking its nose into a tent. And nothing much has changed just at the moment something begins to slide down a slipperly slope. Nothing much has changed when a virulent bug first invades a body. But soon enough everything has changed."

But given his track record on predictions he's going to be very disappointed.

I tried to crunch some numbers for Dawkins's algorithm and Dembski's parody...

tom w said: Behind the talk about information is just the idea that deviations from uniform probability distributions can only be explained with reference to a programmer or God.

Joe Felsenstein said: Even if that were the case it would not validate ID over theistic evolution, and if the smoothness could be due to the weakness of long-range interactions in physics, it does not validate theistic evolution over nontheistic evolution.

But I repeat myself.

Joe wrote:

"It has been pointed out since Richard Weins’s response to Dembski’s NFL argument that real fitness surfaces aren’t like that – for example mutants mostly do not reduce the organism to a chaotic mess."

Well if Dembski wants to do real science and publish in real journals, why doesn't he just go out and measure the fitness of many mutants in many different environments and describe the fitness landscape explicitly? Why publish unrealistic theoretical nonsense arguing about it? Why not just provide one example of a landscape such as he describes? Why not show how frequent such landscapes are in nature? He can get all the money he needs from the DI.

Of course there are two reasons why he doesn't do this. One is that he knows he is wrong and any real data will prove it. Two, no matter what the fitness landscape is, it still doesn't require any intelligence, never did, never will. That makes the theoretical nonsense even more irrelevant.

I'd have to guess that species on a smooth part of the "landscape" would on average be more successful than species on a largely discontinuous portion of the landscape, since they'd be more likely to successfully adapt when changes happen (well, non-catastrophic changes, anyway).

Henry J

Mike Elzinga said:

Matt G said: Will the horses be drawing him?

Yup; quarter horses.

Matt G said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Matt G said: Will the horses be drawing him?

Yup; quarter horses.

Just as long as it's a good likeness, I don't care what fraction of a horse does it....

SWT said: Then again, perhaps this is a feint to lull us into a false sense of security, and the next paper will knock our socks off. Or not.

There might never be another Dover trial. The IDers including Dembski have given up denying that the Designer is jesus which makes it an explicitly xian fundie cult idea. And ID itself seems to be going downhill as they move closer and closer to pure YEC creationism.

— raven

Joe Felsenstein said: I'd put it a little differently. In effect they are saying that any deviations from a needle-in-a-haystack fitness surface can only be explained by The Designer. Needle-in-a-haystack is the case where each genotype has a fitness which is randomly assigned, totally independently of the fitnesses of neighboring genotypes (say, those one letter different). Such a fitness surface is like the ones the No Free Lunch Theorem assumes. It has been pointed out since Richard Weins's response to Dembski's NFL argument that real fitness surfaces aren't like that -- for example mutants mostly do not reduce the organism to a chaotic mess.

Now Dembski and Marks come along and say, yes, the fitness surfaces are smoother than that, but that is because The Designer put information into them to make them smooth. Even if that were the case it would not validate ID over theistic evolution, and if the smoothness could be due to the weakness of long-range interactions in physics, it does not validate theistic evolution over nontheistic evolution.

Try as I might, I can't understand the ID argument here. Fitness surfaces are the result of interactions between genotype and environment. In a classical fitness surface, environment is invariant, and all that changes is the frequencies of alleles at two or more loci. Is that the sort of fitness surface Dembski is talking about? If so, then the claim would be that the various alleles and their interactions were set up by the designer so as to make fitness surfaces smooth. But that would seem to be an extreme claim of fiat creation: not just species, but every existing allele, existing from the beginning, and some designed mechanism that prevents other alleles from arising. This is not only bizarre conceptually, but empirically falsified.

So what else could he mean? Perhaps his fitness surface is a more complex one in which environments vary as well as genotypes, and he's arguing that the environment itself provides the smoothness, i.e. that transitions among environments are gradual. If so, how would that be designed? Again, this would seem to require either creation of all environments initially -- pretty much an extreme YEC position -- or some mechanism preventing the surface from changing.

Of course he probably doesn't mean anything: "Blah blah math blah blah, therefore evolution is false" would seem to be the gist of his argument. But if he did mean something, what would it be?

John Harshman said: Try as I might, I can't understand the ID argument here. Fitness surfaces are the result of interactions betwe

John Harshman said: Of course he probably doesn't mean anything: "Blah blah math blah blah, therefore evolution is false" would seem to be the gist of his argument. But if he did mean something, what would it be?

I think the direction that he might be going is to say that to the extent evolution works, it has to be a consequence of "design" -- that the "designer" has placed information in our genome not by front loading everything that might be needed into some super proto-genome, but by the nature of the evolutionary process. So, in a peculiar sort of way, if you squint just right, confirmation of evolution becomes confirmation of design, and therefore confirmation of a designer, and therefore evidence against "naturalism."

John Harshman said: Of course he probably doesn't mean anything: "Blah blah math blah blah, therefore evolution is false" would seem to be the gist of his argument. But if he did mean something, what would it be?

John Harshman said: Try as I might, I can't understand the ID argument here.

SWT said:

John Harshman said: Of course he probably doesn't mean anything: "Blah blah math blah blah, therefore evolution is false" would seem to be the gist of his argument. But if he did mean something, what would it be?

I think the direction that he might be going is to say that to the extent evolution works, it has to be a consequence of "design" -- that the "designer" has placed information in our genome not by front loading everything that might be needed into some super proto-genome, but by the nature of the evolutionary process. So, in a peculiar sort of way, if you squint just right, confirmation of evolution becomes confirmation of design, and therefore confirmation of a designer, and therefore evidence against "naturalism."

Mike Elzinga said:

Dave C said: Is "Conservation of Information" an actual, well-established principle, or is this just more wankery from WAD?

It would be the latter. Dembski made up the term but it has no use in the scientific community.

That's it, that's your best? Name-dropping? That's all you've got?

Even FL strings ideas together. We may not think his ideas are very sound, but he makse a legitimate attempt at argumentation. You don't even troll well.

Daffyd ap Morgen said: Out of curiosity I looked up "Conservation of Information." It's something Dr. Dembski created as part of his "Specified Complexity," (i.e. some things are so complex they call for a Creator). He has an article about it in Wikipedia. This Specified Complexity was thoroughly trashed in the Dover trial, where the plaintiffs demonstrated that no matter how complex something was in nature, it was still an example of evolution in action.

Eric,

Citing peer reviewed literature is "name dropping"?

So all the peer reviewed literature that cite long lists of references to prior peer reviewed literature amounts to nothing more than "name dropping"?

All papers then, in your opinion, should consist entirely of original work with no references to the work of others.

Seems like that would limit the progress of science to some degree.

Dave Springer said: Citing peer reviewed literature is "name dropping"?

eric said:

Dave Springer said: Citing peer reviewed literature is "name dropping"?

As for your second referenced paper, I will admit that a new relaxtion method for the inverse solution to the full radiative transfer equation is beyond me. I'm no cynic though - rather than think you just googled words without understanding the paper, I will assume you do understand it and its connection to the theory of evolution. So, why don't you explain to me what that connection is? How does "information" in radiative transfer equations relate to the "information" discussed by Demski? Is it mathematically the same?

Dave Springer said: In this 1972 paper produced by the CalTech Jet Propulsion Laboratory published in the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences (Vol 29, page 743) we find: "The process of optimizing the results obtained from a discrete set of sounding frequencies should not violate the law of conservation of information"... Dembski was 12 years old when this JPL scientist referred to the law of conservation of information.

To Dave Springer

Dave, have you stopped to consider the implications of your Law of Conservation of Information? Even IDers accept that biological change can occur by loss of information from the designer's original plans. Conservation of Information would require every deleterious mutation causing a loss of information in one gamete to be balanced by a gain of information in the other. You would have discovered a mechanism for evolution, and one considerably more powerful than any currently proposed by mainstream sciene.

Dan said: If Dave had even minimal understanding of Susskin's work or Chahine's work, he would have known this. I'm afraid that Dave has earned the charge of "name dropping" in this case.

Hi again Mike

Who is Susskin?

Maybe an article written more for the lay person will help you understand information conservation. Or maybe you're just lying for Darwin and nothing will change what you say except perhaps a bolt of lightning hitting you out of a clear blue sky. In that case the following is for those intellectually honest individuals that might be lurking here.

Physical Laws Collide in a Black Hole Bet

Just read it. It's self explanatory and I don't want to be accused of quote mining or name dropping again.

David Springer said: Physical Laws Collide in a Black Hole Bet Just read it. It's self explanatory and I don't want to be accused of quote mining or name dropping again.

Wheels said: So really, you're doing little more than name-dropping: You haven't explained anything.

Hmmm ... I read through that article and what it seems to say about "information conservation" is that, in principle, the initial conditions of a physical system can be traced back from any later state in the history of the system.

I am getting a headache trying to think of how such a revelation says anything about modern evolutionary science one way or another. Indeed, if I think of evolutionary trees I can see them as a scheme in which the initial conditions are traced back in considerable detail. Since we can trace evolutionary pathways back, obviously information has been conserved in the process.

Ah, except for the "gaps" ... oh dear, did I just say that? Now we'll be told that gaps in the fossil record imply a violation of the law of information conservation.

Why do people continue to miss the "closed system" specification on all these Laws. This is merely the "evolution violates the 2nd law" ignorance all over again.

DNAJock said: Why do people continue to miss the "closed system" specification on all these Laws. This is merely the "evolution violates the 2nd law" ignorance all over again.

DNAJock said: Why do people continue to miss the "closed system" specification on all these Laws. This is merely the "evolution violates the 2nd law" ignorance all over again.

Michael J said: I think that you have highlighted Dembski's issue. I'm not sure that he understands it or is being purposefully oblique. He wants to say that evolution is impossible and that we all came about by a number of discrete events (poofs) brought about by God. However, all he is showing is that the fitness landscape is amenable to evolution.

Kaz Dragon said: Correct me if I'm wrong...

If nature were designed the way Dembski thinks it is, then wouldn't it be impossible to detect?

After all, if his deity designed everything, then everything was designed.

It follows, therefore, that there's no way of detecting non-design, because there's no non-design to detect,....

....and therefore no way of detecting design, because there's nothing to compare the answer with, except for blindly saying "yes".

Dene Bebbington said: If the information in something has to be explained by design, then I guess it must be Gods all the way down.

Ray wrote:

"Dembski accepts the concept of “evolution” or “mutability” to exist in nature; he is not a fixist or immutabilist."

So Ray, care to enlighten us about the evidence that has lead you to be a "fixist"? Exactly why do you believe this? It isn't just an argument from incredulity is it? So, in your opinion, Dembski is not a true creationist?

Joe Felsenstein said:

Ginger Yellow said: Has Dembski, one of probably the two leading proponents of ID, really now retreated to a claim that *all* natural selection can do is transfer information from the environment? Is that not a staggering admission of defeat? How does that say anything at all about the truth or otherwise of evolutionary theory, which Dembski once claimed would be dead within 10 years?

That's the basic conclusion of this thread and its earlier one ... the new “pro-ID” papers admit that natural selection can put information into the genome. In light of Dembski's previous arguments a staggering admission.

DS said: Ray wrote: "Dembski accepts the concept of “evolution” or “mutability” to exist in nature; he is not a fixist or immutabilist." So Ray, care to enlighten us about the evidence that has lead you to be a "fixist"?

Exactly why do you believe this? It isn't just an argument from incredulity is it? So, in your opinion, Dembski is not a true creationist?

Frank J said:

Joe Felsenstein said:

Ginger Yellow said: Has Dembski, one of probably the two leading proponents of ID, really now retreated to a claim that *all* natural selection can do is transfer information from the environment? Is that not a staggering admission of defeat? How does that say anything at all about the truth or otherwise of evolutionary theory, which Dembski once claimed would be dead within 10 years?

That's the basic conclusion of this thread and its earlier one ... the new “pro-ID” papers admit that natural selection can put information into the genome. In light of Dembski's previous arguments a staggering admission.

It depends on how you define "admit." IMO Dembski and Behe at least have admitted for years "between the lines" that virtually everything about evolution is true, and that YEC and OEC-without-common-descent are false. But you'll never catch them dead stating it in unequivocal terms. Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum, Ray Martinez admits to being the only true creationist, and that "20th century 'Creationism' is laughable nonsense, pseudoscience, anti- science."

raven said: His personality got him bounced from Baylor in a very short time. Not the first one to notice or comment on this.

Don’t you think you should have included the information that it was Darwinists who bounced him?

SWT said:

John Harshman said: Try as I might, I can't understand the ID argument here. Fitness surfaces are the result of interactions betwe

John Harshman said: Of course he probably doesn't mean anything: "Blah blah math blah blah, therefore evolution is false" would seem to be the gist of his argument. But if he did mean something, what would it be?

I think the direction that he might be going is to say that to the extent evolution works, it has to be a consequence of "design" -- that the "designer" has placed information in our genome not by front loading everything that might be needed into some super proto-genome, but by the nature of the evolutionary process. So, in a peculiar sort of way, if you squint just right, confirmation of evolution becomes confirmation of design, and therefore confirmation of a designer, and therefore evidence against "naturalism."

stevaroni said:

Don’t you think you should have included the information that it was Darwinists who bounced him?

Actually, the "Don't want a crazy person speaking for the school-ists" bounced him.

So, just to summarize, Ray believes that the same evidence that ID proponents use is what convinced him that species are immutable, even though Dembski is an IDist but no creationist, due to the fact that he does not believe species are immutable. Thanks for clearing that up Ray.

Now, if you could just cite some actual, you know, evidence, everyone would be convinced. Until then, piss off.

Ray, you need to start to think before you post. Do you know anything about Baylor? Dembski was bounced because he made an idiot of himself, and behaved like an ignorant, self-important jackass.

He was bounced by Christians, Ray. The whole "Darwin" thing doesn't come into it.

You shouldn't be dishonest and claim otherwise. False witness is a sin for you, isn't it?

Ray, you need to start to think before you post. Do you know anything about Baylor? Dembski was bounced because he made an idiot of himself, and behaved like an ignorant, self-important jackass.

He was bounced by Christians, Ray. The whole "Darwin" thing doesn't come into it.

You shouldn't be dishonest and claim otherwise. False witness is a sin for you, isn't it?

Ray's surety that nature doesn't change species is really only surety that his own opinion won't change. It's not faith in God which drives him, it's faith in Himself.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: You shouldn't be dishonest and claim otherwise. False witness is a sin for you, isn't it?

"Thinking rationally and acting charitably towards others like Jesus asked of His followers are sins to Ray Martinez"

Wheels said: Ray's surety that nature doesn't change species is really only surety that his own opinion won't change. It's not faith in God which drives him, it's faith in Himself.

Here are a few of the sites that indoctrinate the ID/creationist trolls we see showing up here.

There may be a few poes that learn from these sites also.

Here is YEC Headquarters.

Ridgecrest.

University of Missouri Kansas City Law School.

Revolution against Evolution.

Looks awfully familiar, doesn’t it?

Oops! I meant to put the UMKC Law School at the end as a history of fundamentalism.

But the ID/creationists learn their political tactics by reviewing their own tactics and failures also. So any history of how it was done provides material that gets resurrected after people have forgotten the past. Its one of the tactics I have seen repeated since they really got organized starting somewhere around the 1970s.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Ray, you need to start to think before you post. Do you know anything about Baylor? Dembski was bounced because he made an idiot of himself, and behaved like an ignorant, self-important jackass. He was bounced by Christians, Ray. The whole "Darwin" thing doesn't come into it. You shouldn't be dishonest and claim otherwise. False witness is a sin for you, isn't it?

Stanton said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: You shouldn't be dishonest and claim otherwise. False witness is a sin for you, isn't it?

Normally, I would say,

"Thinking rationally and acting charitably towards others like Jesus asked of His followers are sins to Ray Martinez"

But I've come to the conclusion that he's actually a poe trolling as a Jerk for Jesus, trying to see how far he can rattle "Darwinists"' cages by declaring Ham and Dembski as being "Darwinists" because they aren't Creationist enough for his impossible and impossibly stupid standards, yet, also claim that Lamarck was a Creationist because he imagined that Lamarck made an imaginary appeal to a Creator. Ray Martinez has to be a trolling poe. The only other alternative is that he's a deranged misomaniac, like Fred Phelps or the Timecube nut.

So Ray, it seems that absolutely no one else agrees with your assessment that species are immutable. It also seems that ID offers no evidence whatsoever that can help you. So, do you want to tell us what this evidence is, or are we just to assume that your opinion is not based on evidence at all? That's about what I thought.

Ray Martinez said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Ray, you need to start to think before you post. Do you know anything about Baylor? Dembski was bounced because he made an idiot of himself, and behaved like an ignorant, self-important jackass. He was bounced by Christians, Ray. The whole "Darwin" thing doesn't come into it. You shouldn't be dishonest and claim otherwise. False witness is a sin for you, isn't it?

Are you denying the bouncers to be evolutionists or Darwinists?

Once again, all Ray-Ray has is word games. Go away, Ray.

DS said: So Ray, it seems that absolutely no one else agrees with your assessment that species are immutable. It also seems that ID offers no evidence whatsoever that can help you. So, do you want to tell us what this evidence is, or are we just to assume that your opinion is not based on evidence at all? That's about what I thought.

fnxtr said: Once again, all Ray-Ray has is word games.

DS asked:

So Ray, care to enlighten us about the evidence that has lead you to be a “fixist”?

And Ray answers:

The evidence of ID.

...without even trying, in any of his NINE ridiculous posts, to describe exactly what that "evidence" is.

Dembski and the Fundies are in Darwin-Dawkins camp.

Here we see Ray reverting back to his standard reflex of argument by labelling -- which is just a fancy way of saying "name-calling." This is, I recall, the same guy who screamed "JUDAS-ELEVENTY-ONE!!!!!" when it was pointed out to him that not all evangelical conservative Christians rejected evolution. And the laughable fake titles he adds to his (totally disgraced) name reinforce the point: with Ray, it's all about the labels.

I side with Paley and the nine great scientific authorities of Darwin 1859:310—species are immutable.

Um...dude...have you noticed how human children don't always look exactly like their parents? See how easy it is to smack down your "species are immutable" argument?

People who accept the concept of ID to exist in nature cannot describe phenomena using terms (“evolution” and “selection”) that have a long history in service to unintelligent agency.

I guess this is the latest excuse for creationists' inability to formulate a coherent hypothesis: "we can't say anything 'cause the words all turn against us!" What a fucking joke.

Beneath nine posts containing the worst word-salad I've yet seen (and all the laughable and everchanging fake titles he gives himself), Ray is still the same hateful, stupid, name-calling, blame-everyone-but-me crybaby he always was.

What would anyone expect? Keep on pushing the doorbell when nobody's home, the answer is always going to be the same: "Ding-dong!"

a lurker said: What would anyone expect? Keep on pushing the doorbell when nobody's home, the answer is always going to be the same: "Ding-dong!"

Mike Elzinga said: Here are a few of the sites that indoctrinate the ID/creationist trolls we see showing up here. There may be a few poes that learn from these sites also. ... Ridgecrest. ....

How does a moth know how it tastes to a bird? How does a moth know how particular butterflies taste? What kind of Lamarkian process did the moths use to make their children look like they taste bad?

Dan said: I couldn't put so many misconceptions into three questions if I tried!

Mike Elzinga said: It’s either incredible chutzpa or impermeable stupidity.

Come to think of it, they react synergistically, don't they?

Synergisticly?

(ahem) In a synergistic fashion.

Raging Bee said: DS asked: So Ray, care to enlighten us about the evidence that has lead you to be a “fixist”? And Ray answers: The evidence of ID. ...without even trying, in any of his NINE....posts, to describe exactly what that "evidence" is.

Dembski and the Fundies are in Darwin-Dawkins camp. Here we see Ray reverting back to his standard reflex of argument by labelling -- which is just a fancy way of saying "name-calling. (SNIP....)"

I side with Paley and the nine great scientific authorities of Darwin 1859:310—species are immutable. Um...dude...have you noticed how human children don't always look exactly like their parents? See how easy it is to smack down your "species are immutable" argument?

People who accept the concept of ID to exist in nature cannot describe phenomena using terms (“evolution” and “selection”) that have a long history in service to unintelligent agency. I guess this is the latest excuse for creationists' inability to formulate a coherent hypothesis: "we can't say anything 'cause the words all turn against us!" What a fucking joke. (SNIP....)

Stanton said:

DS said: So Ray, it seems that absolutely no one else agrees with your assessment that species are immutable. It also seems that ID offers no evidence whatsoever that can help you. So, do you want to tell us what this evidence is, or are we just to assume that your opinion is not based on evidence at all? That's about what I thought.

Whether or not Ray is a poe pretending to be a Jerkoff for Jesus, or if he really is a deranged, barely coherent misomaniac, he makes himself look stupider every time he posts, given as how he claims that all species are immutable, but insists on defending Lamarck as being a Creationist, even though everyone with a functioning brain knows how Lamarck was trying to discuss his own ideas on how species CHANGE with each passing generation.

In other words, short Ray, "Species are immutable because I say God said so."

Nothing but a stupid word game peppered with bigotry and projection.

Ray Martinez said: I have posted a respected Ph.D. source that says Lamarck relied upon Divine power operating in reality in order to sustain descent. ANYONE who accepts vertical agency operating in reality is a Creationist.

Ray,

I asked for evidence, again, you presented exactly none. Evidence Ray is genetic data, evidence is fossils, evidence is what you ain't got. The concept of ID is not evidence of anything, especially since no ID proponent actually believes that species are immutable, not Lamark, not Behe, not Dembski, no one. And even if they did, they too would completely lack any evidence.

Look Ray, it doesn't even matter that you are completely wrong here. If you want to be part of an adult discussion about science you must be willing to present some evidence, you can't, period.

Oh and let's not forget that you have completely failed to even try to address the evidence that actually does exist. You know that pesky evidence that convinced even Behe that species are not fixed. Until you can deal with the evidence no one cares about you opinion, so kindly piss off.

Ray wrote:

"Species are immutable based on the concept of ID..."

Concepts are NOT evidence of anything! Concepts are just ideas, in the case of ID, an idea without any evidence. You do know that the supreme court ruled that ID is not science don't you? If you really think that concepts are evidence, then here are some concepts that demonstrate that species are not "immutable":

Allopatric speciation
Sympatric speciation
Parapatric speciation
Adaptive radiation
Macroeviolution
Cladogenesis
Reproductive isolating mechanisms (cytogenetic, behavioral, etc.)
Genetic divergence
Molecular clocks
Nested genetic hierarchies

There is abundant evidence for each of these and many more. Are you ever going to deal with all of this evidence? Every day you delay more and more evidence accumulates. Just sit there and keep repeating ID, ID, ID until you convince someone.

Labeling someone a creationist or a darwinist isn't evidence either. Labels are not evidence any more than concepts. You really do need to learn the difference. Once again, Lamark did NOT believe that species were immutable. Whether you label him a creationist or not is irrelevant. Whatever you label anyone is irrelevant. The fact that you have absolutely no evidence, priceless.

The fact of variation does not negate the concept of ID; nor is variation evidence of evolution.

It's evidence -- at the very least -- that your assertion that "species are immutable" is pure ignorant crap, and you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Seriously, do you actually understand the fake-logical drivel you just posted? Of course not -- you just pasted something you found on Teh Intarweb that sounded good, then reverted to the same pathetic name-calling -- excuse me, "argument by labelling" -- that you never grew out of.

Oh, and variation is indeed evidence of evolution: if you see variation -- and thus mutability -- within a species, then it's a pretty safe bet that the variants best suited for their current environment will have a better chance of living long enough to reproduce, and thus passing their genetic traits to their offspring, thus contributing to the viability of the species as a whole. THAT'S EVOLUTION, you sad little feeb; and anyone not blinded by inexplicable hatred of new knowledge can understand it.

Ray Martinez said: I have posted a respected Ph.D. source that says Lamarck relied upon Divine power operating in reality in order to sustain descent.

Dan wrote:

"You do know, Ray, that no scientist alive today (and probably no person alive today) holds to Lamarck’s theory of evolution, don’t you?"

Well, people keep demanding evidence and he doesn't have any. What's a guy to do? Admit you are completely full of crap or spew out meaningless, irrelevant drivel and hope no one notices? Terrific choice. Well, unfortunately everyone noticed.

Opinions are rightly informed by evidence and when they cease to be so they should rightly be ignored.

Dan said: You do know, Ray, that no scientist alive today (and probably no person alive today) holds to Lamarck's theory of evolution, don't you?

Ray Martinez said: Species are immutable based on the concept of ID seen in nature. "ID" means that each species (= Paley's watches), exhibits the concept, AND that Intelligent agency is causing the concept to exist... ...The fact of variation does not negate the concept of ID; nor is variation evidence of evolution.

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: Species are immutable based on the concept of ID seen in nature. "ID" means that each species (= Paley's watches), exhibits the concept, AND that Intelligent agency is causing the concept to exist... ...The fact of variation does not negate the concept of ID; nor is variation evidence of evolution.

Coincidentally, PZ just posted on this very topic. Turns out, every human baby has about 150 novel mutations. To make your PT browsing easier, I'll include PZ's links here: one to BBC, another to Sandwalk. So Ray, the species is not immutable unless your definition of "immutable species" is "a species where allele frequency changes over generations." Which is just nonsensical. As the quote goes: you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

ben said: Why not ease off on the culture warfare and hack blogging, formulate a hypothesis and test it, IDers? Afraid of what you might (not) find?

Re: Micro/Macro

They apparently think that a species can just mutate perpetually without accumulating enough changes that one population loses the ability to interbreed with the rest of the population.

Most of them probably simultaneously think that "all mutations are bad," and/or have the idea that evolution is a ladder of progress rather than a bloom of changes in all directions at once with the environment determining which changes make more sense at the time. Some of them surely have the idea that "macroevolution" is a half-duck-half-crocodile.

So rather than there being a mechanism to prevent macroevolution, they don't think that there's any mechanism to allow macroevolution.

ben said:

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: Species are immutable based on the concept of ID seen in nature. "ID" means that each species (= Paley's watches), exhibits the concept, AND that Intelligent agency is causing the concept to exist... ...The fact of variation does not negate the concept of ID; nor is variation evidence of evolution.

Coincidentally, PZ just posted on this very topic. Turns out, every human baby has about 150 novel mutations. To make your PT browsing easier, I'll include PZ's links here: one to BBC, another to Sandwalk. So Ray, the species is not immutable unless your definition of "immutable species" is "a species where allele frequency changes over generations." Which is just nonsensical. As the quote goes: you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

By accepting "microevolution" (as they must in order to lay any claim to sciency-ness for ID) while rejecting "macroevolution", cdesign proponentsists open the door to a potential fertile ground for a testable ID hypothesis: If microevolution exists and macroevolution does not, there must be some mechanism which prevents macroevolution from occurring. What is it? Why not ease off on the culture warfare and hack blogging, formulate a hypothesis and test it, IDers? Afraid of what you might (not) find?

Ray Martinez babbled: IF microevolution exists then macroevolution MUST exist because macro is accumulated micro. Microevolution does not exist because unguided-undirected-unintelligent natural-material processes do not exist.

Ray Martinez babbled: IF microevolution exists then macroevolution MUST exist because macro is accumulated micro. Microevolution does not exist because unguided-undirected-unintelligent natural-material processes do not exist.

DS said: Ray, I asked for evidence, again, you presented exactly none.

(SNIP....) The concept of ID is not evidence of anything, especially since no ID proponent actually believes that species are immutable,....not Behe, not Dembski, no one. (SNIP....)

Ray Martinez said: I presented the observation of ID seen in species. I argued conceptually. Your reply denies the evidence to exist. That is what evolution is all about: denialism.

Stanton said:

Ray Martinez babbled: IF microevolution exists then macroevolution MUST exist because macro is accumulated micro. Microevolution does not exist because unguided-undirected-unintelligent natural-material processes do not exist.

You've stated this nonsense about how microevolution allegedly doesn't exist over and over and over and over again, yet, you've never ever ever even tried to debunk the millions of examples of observed microevolution.

Your claim of "species are immutable because I said God said so" explains nothing.

Ray Martinez said: I presented the observation of ID seen in species. I argued conceptually. Your reply denies the evidence to exist.

Ray Martinez said: Your claim of mutable species because Atheists say so is predictable since Atheists have no other choice.

fnxtr said:

Ray Martinez said: Your claim of mutable species because Atheists say so is predictable since Atheists have no other choice.

Your thinly veiled allegation that acceptance of the fact of evolution = atheism is what we agnostic laymen call "bullshit".

Ray,

You obviously have no concept of what evidence is. OK, I'm going to make this really simple for you. Just answer the following Yes or no questions:

1) Do mutations occur?

2) Can mutations cause reproductive isolation between populations?

3) Does genetic divergence occur when reproductive isolation is present?

4) Can genetic divergence lead to the production of new species?

If you answer no to any of these questions, please provide evidence for your answer, preferably in the form of a peer reviewed article in a real science journal. Quoting ID nonsense is not evidence. Stating an opinion or a concept is not evidence.

And don't forget that everyone can see that you had no answer to any of the concepts that I mentioned either.

Ray Martinez said: Again: the observation of design and organized complexity seen in each species falsifies the microevolution interpretation.

Your claim of mutable species because Atheists say so is predictable since Atheists have no other choice.

Ray Martinez said: Again: the observation of design and organized complexity seen in each species falsifies the microevolution interpretation.

Stanton said: In other words, short Ray, "Species are immutable because I say God said so."

Ray: "Species are immutable based on the concept of ID seen in nature. “ID” means that each species (= Paley’s watches), exhibits the concept, AND that Intelligent agency is causing the concept to exist."

Nothing but a stupid word game peppered with bigotry and projection.

Ray wrote:

"Again: the observation of design and organized complexity seen in each species falsifies the microevolution interpretation."

No it doesn't. No matter when or how species were created, (assuming for the sake of argument that they were), they could have been created to evolve. In fact, it would have been monumentally stupid to create them otherwise. And of course you don't have any evidence that "organized complexity" could not evolve, so you have exactly nothing.

"Your claim of mutable species because Atheists say so is predictable since Atheists have no other choice."

Who said I was an atheist? Actually the claim is based on evidence, something apparently beyond your comprehension. Why won't you deal with the evidence Ray? Do you thing that labeling everyone who disagrees with you is an argument? Are Lamark, Behe, Dembski and the Pope atheists? Remember they all disagree with you as well.

OK Ray, if you can't answer some simple yes and no questions, why don't you explain to us how your immutable opinion explains the law of faunal succession. We're waiting.

eric said: So which is it? God responsible for all changes in every genome, or not-and-therefore-evolution?

Ray ignores evidence in favor of concepts, and his only criterion for accepting a concept is that it line up with his preconceived religious beliefs. That's why he's not arguing from the evidence, simply arguing that the evidence "supports" him without ever citing any.

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: Again: the observation of design and organized complexity seen in each species falsifies the microevolution interpretation.

So, let me get this straight. You say that because intelligence created one part of a genome (a tendentious claim at best, but I'll give it to you for sake of argument), all the other parts must be the result of intelligence too?

Eric said: We claim species are mutable because mutations - variance in genomes from what regular sexual combination would achieve - are directly observed.

You can take a chromasome, analyze it, and find bits of it that didn't come from either parent.

Ray should take this up with Behe, maybe together they can discover the true "edge of evolution". It won't be with proof or evidence, of course, it will be with exegesis, number-juggling, and word games.

It's the PFJ all over again. Splitters.

eric said: We claim species are mutable because mutations - variance in genomes from what regular sexual combination would achieve - are directly observed. You can take a chromasome, analyze it, and find bits of it that didn't come from either parent. Either God is responsible for all of these, which makes him a monster, or natural non-intelligent forces are responsible for some of them, in which case microevolution occurs - and by your own admission this would mean that macroevolution can occur. So which is it? God responsible for all changes in every genome, or not-and-therefore-evolution?

Ray wrote,

"FACT: variation in itself is not mutability or evolution."

FACT: variation is all that is required for selection to act and for speciation to occur. You can try to deny it all you want, you can try to redefine it all you want, but you cannot explain the evidence and you have absolutely no evidence of your own.

Once again you have ignored all of my questions. The fact that you cannot answer proves that you really don't believe the crap you are spewing. Hereafter, all of your crap will be ignored and I will simply assume that you yourself already realize that it is just pure crap.

DS said: Ray wrote, "FACT: variation in itself is not mutability or evolution." FACT: variation is all that is required for selection to act and for speciation to occur.

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: Again: the observation of design and organized complexity seen in each species falsifies the microevolution interpretation.

So, let me get this straight. You say that because intelligence created one part of a genome (a tendentious claim at best, but I'll give it to you for sake of argument), all the other parts must be the result of intelligence too?

Ray yammers.... Our position is as follows: there is no such thing as unguided-undirected-unintelligent material agencies operating in nature or in biological entities; therefore the concept of evolution (= connectedness, common ancestry) does not exist.

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: Species are immutable based on the concept of ID seen in nature. "ID" means that each species (= Paley's watches), exhibits the concept, AND that Intelligent agency is causing the concept to exist... ...The fact of variation does not negate the concept of ID; nor is variation evidence of evolution.

Coincidentally, PZ just posted on this very topic. Turns out, every human baby has about 150 novel mutations. To make your PT browsing easier, I'll include PZ's links here: one to BBC, another to Sandwalk. So Ray, the species is not immutable unless your definition of "immutable species" is "a species where allele frequency changes over generations." Which is just nonsensical. As the quote goes: you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

stevaroni said:

Ray yammers.... Our position is as follows: there is no such thing as unguided-undirected-unintelligent material agencies operating in nature or in biological entities; therefore the concept of evolution (= connectedness, common ancestry) does not exist.

Great! Finally! A statement that can actually be examined. Now, if you'll just put your proof on the table we'll proceed. You, um, Do have proof of divine intervention, right, Ray?

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Ray wrote, "FACT: variation in itself is not mutability or evolution." FACT: variation is all that is required for selection to act and for speciation to occur.

We explain the fact of variation to be the product of a mechanism built by Divine power.

Ray Martinez said: But we do not expect Atheists to agree for obvious reasons. Atheism exists to deny reality.

Ray Martinez said:

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: Species are immutable based on the concept of ID seen in nature. "ID" means that each species (= Paley's watches), exhibits the concept, AND that Intelligent agency is causing the concept to exist... ...The fact of variation does not negate the concept of ID; nor is variation evidence of evolution.

Coincidentally, PZ just posted on this very topic. Turns out, every human baby has about 150 novel mutations. To make your PT browsing easier, I'll include PZ's links here: one to BBC, another to Sandwalk. So Ray, the species is not immutable unless your definition of "immutable species" is "a species where allele frequency changes over generations." Which is just nonsensical. As the quote goes: you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Your penchant for defining "mutability" to be "variation" is again noted. Your argument ASSUMES its conclusion each step of the way: "variation means mutability has occurred." This is called "begging the question."

Sexually reproducing species are immutable because evolution is impossible.

"Evolution" is an illusion caused by the power of Mastermind. The concept of "Mastermind" explains why species look similar. In other words, it is the signature of God. IF undirected and unintelligent processes caused biological production, chaos and irregularity would result, not similarity and symmetry.

Our position is as follows: there is no such thing as unguided-undirected-unintelligent material agencies operating in nature or in biological entities; therefore the concept of evolution (= connectedness, common ancestry) does not exist.

— Ray Martinez

Rays wrote:

"We explain the fact of variation to be the product of a mechanism built by Divine power."

Ray, your royal we we is showing.

Now, can you please explain exactly how much variation is produced by this supposed mechanism built by this supposed "divine power"? Got any evidence for this "divine power"? Got any idea about the mechanism by which it creates variation? Got any reason why it can't create enough variation to produce new species? Got any reason why it shouldn't?

That's exactly what I thought. You got nothin. You don't really believe any of this crap do you? If you do, then it shouldn't be any problem for you to explain now should it? One of you really should be able to explain.

DS said: ... You got nothin. You don't really believe any of this crap do you? If you do, then it shouldn't be any problem for you to explain now should it? One of you really should be able to explain.

Ray.

As long as you are answering all our questions, perhaps you could enlighten us about pythons. Were they all created separately by your god? If so, and they are not really related by descent, why do they cluster together in a phylogenetic anlaysis? Why do they all cluster in exactly the same place regardless of whether nuclear of mitochondrial genes are used to draw the phyologeny? Why is there a nested genetic hierarchy at all? Here is the reference for you:

Molecular Phylogenetic and Evolution (2002) 24:194-202

Here is another question for you Ray, if the amount of intraspecific genetic variation within one species is two percent and the amount of interspecific variation between two species is one percent, how can you possibly claim that the one percent required divine intervention but the two percent did not? Doesn't sound like a very good hypothesis to me. But then again, you don't really believe any of this crap do you?

Ray sez: "There is no such thing as unguided-undirected-unintelligent material agencies operating in nature ... evolution ... does not exist." I ask: "You, um, do have proof of divine intervention, right, Ray?" Ray responds: Yes, of course: the observation of design and organized complexity seen in each species. The same corresponds to Intelligent interventionism."

stevaroni said:

Ray sez: "There is no such thing as unguided-undirected-unintelligent material agencies operating in nature ... evolution ... does not exist." I ask: "You, um, do have proof of divine intervention, right, Ray?" Ray responds: Yes, of course: the observation of design and organized complexity seen in each species. The same corresponds to Intelligent interventionism."

But that doesn't quite do it, Ray. I asked for proof of divine intervention. To take but a small example, here's a link to Richard Lenski's recent long-term E. coli evolution experiment. On it's face, this clearly seems be a straightforward demonstration of evolutoion in action, painstakingly documented in numbing minutia. The exact chain of mutations is known down to the exact timing of every gene. At first glance, this looks like it would satisfy even Dembski's demand for point-by-point documentation. And there is no question of "frontloading" the genome. The exact mutation is known. It isn't just turned on from an idle state, it is a de novo bit of information coming from point mutations in two unrelated miscopied sites 20,000 generations apart. So, given what appears to be a stunningly clear-cut case of evolution in action,....

I ask you, since you claim that this was the hand of the divine at work, to please demonstrate exactly what the finger of God touched and what he did. [SNIP...]

Ray Martinez said:

I ask you, since you claim that this was the hand of the divine at work, to please demonstrate exactly what the finger of God touched and what he did. [SNIP...]

I never said that a Divine hand or finger touched anything. I said mechanisms causing biological production were built by Divine power. We know this is true based on the observation of design and organized complexity seen in nature as a whole and in each species and organism.

Ray wrote:

"Lenski’s starting assumption is: “evolution.” He interprets all data as supporting the concept."

Then he writes:

"We know this is true based on the observation of design and organized complexity seen in nature as a whole and in each species and organism."

In other words, he is doing exactly what he accuses others of doing. In this case Lenski has a know mechanism, observed and understood well at the molecular level, which he observes directly in a controlled experiment. This is direct evidence that Ray is completely worng about "immutable species". Instead of accepting this evidence, Ray simply assumes that his view of nature is correct and with absolutely no evidence or mechanism simply dismisses any other possibility. What a hypocrite.

"I never said that a Divine hand or finger touched anything. I said mechanisms causing biological production were built by Divine power."

Right, so the fact that organisms are capable of mutating ad evolving new functions shows that the mechanism is indeed cap[able of changing species. Therefore, they are not immutable in any reaasonable sense. If they are not mutable, you cannot explain why they did not originally have the trait and then acquired it, if the hand of god is requiired in order to change "immutable" species.

And once again Ray ignores all of my questions. What about the pythons Ray? What about the nested genetic hierarchy? What about the variance in inter and intraspecific genetic variation? Once again we must conclude that he doesn't really believe any of this crap. He is just trying to find more ways of saying "GOD did it".

Ray Martinez said:

eric said: So, let me get this straight. You say that because intelligence created one part of a genome (a tendentious claim at best, but I'll give it to you for sake of argument), all the other parts must be the result of intelligence too?

Yes, that is a logical conclusion.

This is like watching a bunch of cats playing with a mouse.

This Ray character is pretty dull and pathetic. He knows absolutely nothing whatsoever about science; he doesn't even make an effort to find out anything.

At best, all he has for any of his claims is repetitious, dogmatic assertion; no evidence. In fact, apparently no comprehension of what the word evidence means.

He can’t read, he can’t respond to questions, he doesn’t comprehend even the most basic concepts and data in science, yet he has the gall to tell people with scientific expertise that they don’t understand science.

Ya gotta wonder what his church is like. I picture a bunch of worms in a can, all earnestly reciting dogma to get themselves out.

Ray apparently thinks that opinions are evidence. Well, OK then, I guess he can't argue with the following opinion:

Ray actually believes that species are mutable and he wants everyone to know it, so, he brings up the idea of intelligent design. After all, what intelligent creator would create complex organisms and then just leave them to die when the environment changed? Any intelligent creator would make them adaptable to a changing evnvironment and that would include not only a mechanism whereby they could mutate and adapt but it would also allow them to give rise to new species as well.

Ray wants everyone to understand that species are mutable, so he presents no evidence whatsoever that species are immutable and completely ignores all of the evidence that they are, throwing in some really horrific logic along the way. He knows that this is sure to convince everyone that species are indeed mutable, which was apparently his goal all along. Nicely done.

Now, all he has to do is drop the ID crap, which he never provided any evidence for anyway and he is left with a perfect explanation for all of the evidence, even though he himself never bothered to provide any.

Raving lunatic or evil genius, you decide. Personally, I don't care.

Ray Martinez said: I have carefully read your comments above. You don't seem to understand as to what is going on with Lenski or any worker in evolutionary theory.

Ray wrote:

"You don’t seem to understand as to what is going on with Lenski or any worker in evolutionary theory."

Yea, right. Name one real evolutionary biologist who agrees that species are immutable Ray. Lenski obviously doesn't. Have you actually read the paper Ray? Have you ever read any real journal article? How about starting with the python reference I provided? Care to venture a guess as to whether those authors believe that species are immutable?

Obviously you are the one who doesn't understand anything. Unless of course you are really trying to convince everyone that species are indeed mutable. If so, you are succeeding admirably.

Mike Elzinga said: This is like watching a bunch of cats playing with a mouse.

wile wrote:

"Obviously the cats find it amusing for whatever reasons,..."

Personally, I appreciate the opportunity to educate those unfamiliar with the evidence. It is important that they know how to respond when confronted with such overwhelming ignorance. Notice that I have no hope whatsoever of ever educating Ray, he just feeds straight lines.

For example, eventually Ray will come back and claim that everything in the E. coli experiment is just variation within a species and can never create new species. Well, reference 104 out of about 190 in the link provided above is this:

Mutation, recombination and incipient speciation of bacteria in the laboratory. PNAS (1999) 96(13):7448-51.

This reference documents the exact mutations that can lead to genetic divergence and eventual speciation in bacteria. They were observed under controlled conditions in the laboratory. Now the standard creationist dodge is that if you observed it, it really hasn't happened yet and if you didn't observe it, it never actually happened. That routine won't work here. So we can see that once again Ray is completely wrong, this time even before he spouts his nonsense.

And of course, if this guy tries to claim that things that happen in the laboratory don't happen in nature, I've got a reference all ready for that as well. I think I'll save that one for now. I wouldn't want to be accused of beating a dead mouse. If only we has some fish and a barrel.

wile coyote said: More like batting around a dead mouse. Obviously the cats find it amusing for whatever reasons, but ... the only things the mouse can produce are messages consisting of words and phrases glued together in a syntactically correct way, but completely meaningless. I literally can't read them. There is no THERE there.

DS said: Personally, I appreciate the opportunity to educate those unfamiliar with the evidence.

Mike Elzinga said: On the other hand, maybe the exercise includes the illusion of stupidity and complete vacuity; somewhat like Sacha Baron Cohen’s character Borat.

I'm not sure that Ray thinks opinion is fact - after all, he thinks that the opinion of practically all scientists who have actually studied the evidence on evolution is not. It's a little more subtle than that.

He thinks that the opinion of whatever group he means when he uses the first person plural, is fact. He takes their assertions, which are the same as his assertions, to be evidence. No, more than evidence. First-person witness, with absolute demonstrated certainty.

So when that group states as fact that design can be discerned in all living things, and that this demonstrates the existence of a Creator, there is no point whatsoever in asking for material evidence of that statement. The statement is in itself a higher order of proof than mere traces on rocks or observations of chemical reactions could ever be.

Since the statement is absolute fact, any apparent clash between it and lesser material evidence must be illusory. It is not necessary to know or to understand the specifics of such material evidence to grasp this simple principle. Indeed, descending to specific material evidence is a serious error.

People who do that are, by definition, denying the action of God, which makes them atheists. Hence, their ideas are necessarily and automatically wrong. That is to say, they are not merely incorrect in the factual sense, but wrong in the moral sense: evil and depraved. Hence, anything they say is to be dismissed and ignored.

Thus, any exchange with such people cannot engage with what they call material evidence. This is on two grounds. One, that it is immaterial, and two, that it is lies. Such an exchange must consist only of assertion and reassertion of general principles and precepts. No descent to the specific can be allowed.

And that's what we see happening here.

Dave Luckett said: ... So when that group states as fact that design can be discerned in all living things, and that this demonstrates the existence of a Creator, there is no point whatsoever in asking for material evidence of that statement. The statement is in itself a higher order of proof than mere traces on rocks or observations of chemical reactions could ever be. Since the statement is absolute fact, any apparent clash between it and lesser material evidence must be illusory. It is not necessary to know or to understand the specifics of such material evidence to grasp this simple principle. Indeed, descending to specific material evidence is a serious error. ... Thus, any exchange with such people cannot engage with what they call material evidence. This is on two grounds. One, that it is immaterial, and two, that it is lies. Such an exchange must consist only of assertion and reassertion of general principles and precepts. No descent to the specific can be allowed. And that's what we see happening here.

Dave Luckett said: I'm not sure that Ray thinks. .... And that's what we see happening here.

Ray wrote: Lenski’s starting assumption is: “evolution.” He interprets all data as supporting the concept.

Since the statement is absolute fact, any apparent clash between it and lesser material evidence must be illusory. It is not necessary to know or to understand the specifics of such material evidence to grasp this simple principle. Indeed, descending to specific material evidence is a serious error.

Well Ray seems to have taken a powder again. Pity that, but then again, he's got lots of splain to do if he ever does dain to disgrace these hallowed threads again. Remember he has yet to explain:

mutations

genetic divergence

speciation

nested genetic hierarchies

evolution of citric acid metabolism

phython phylogeny

variance in intra and interspecific genetic variation

When the mouse is done with that we can move on to macroevolution. Somehow I don't think anyone will care by then.

(safire)
"deign", not dain.
(/safire)

fnxtr:

If you want to stoop to that pathetic level of detail, I will not strain my brain, nor deign to try in vain, to feign an appropriate response. :-)

Ray Martinez said: Your penchant for defining “mutability” to be “variation” is again noted. Your argument ASSUMES its conclusion each step of the way: “variation means mutability has occurred.” This is called “begging the question.”

eric said: That would mean that Lenski and other biologists can force God to perform miracles on schedule simply by repeating their experiments, and that idea tickles me.