This Week in Intelligent Design - 27/04/11

I am delighted to announce that the Society for the Study of Evolution has honored Brown University cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller as this year's recipient of its Stephen Jay Gould Prize. He will receive the award on June 18th during the society's annual meeting.

Among our foremost critics of Intelligent Design creationism, Ken Miller has also been a passionate, quite eloquent, defender of the teaching of biological evolution in secondary school science classrooms around the world.

Here's more information on Ken and why he was chosen as this year's recipient:

http://www.evolutionsociety.org/awards.asp

Prior recipients have been Dr. Eugenie Scott, Executive Director, National Center for Science Education (2009) and Dr. Sean B. Carroll of the University of Wisconsin, Madison and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

I just happened to come across this blog, so rather than scanning through all of your topics, could you please direct me to the topic that deals with what you believe to be the source of information within the DNA molecule? (When life first "evolved")

Gerald Berry said: I just happened to come across this blog, so rather than scanning through all of your topics, could you please direct me to the topic that deals with what you believe to be the source of information within the DNA molecule? (When life first "evolved")

fusilier said:

Gerald Berry said: I just happened to come across this blog, so rather than scanning through all of your topics, could you please direct me to the topic that deals with what you believe to be the source of information within the DNA molecule? (When life first "evolved")

If you would ber so generous as to define "information" in the context, it would be most helpful. Just FYI, deoxyribonucleic acid happens to be a chemical which can self-replicate, following the ordinary process of sharing s,p,d,f electrons. It is a more stable version of ribonucleic acid, which can also self-replicate and which can serve as a catalyst for polypeptide synthesis. ...

The "EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE" aspect of the Axe and Gauger paper also seems to rely quite heavily on the population model developed by Axe and published in the same "journal". That paper was essentially an attack on Michael Lynch's recent work. The arguments are largely above my pay grade but personally I'd back Lynch over Axe. Here's the paper:

"The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations"

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4

Gerald Berry said: I just happened to come across this blog, so rather than scanning through all of your topics, could you please direct me to the topic that deals with what you believe to be the source of information within the DNA molecule? (When life first "evolved")

Gerald Berry said: could you please direct me to the topic that deals with what you believe to be the source of information within the DNA molecule?

My view is probably not shared by many.

When discussing "information" in the genome, the first question is to define "information".

We know that living things have heredity and nonlife does not. We know that heredity is defined by the genome. We know that the genome provides instructions for the organization and operation of an organism, as defined in the sequences of DNA in the genome.

If we then say that the genome has "information", what do we know that we didn't before?

And if somewhat insists that an intelligence was required to create the "information" in the genome,
in what way is that different from saying that an intelligence had to have created the genome?

And in what way is that different from saying that an organism had to be created by an intelligence?

And in what way is that different from simply declaring as a fact with no further justification that creationism is true?

Cubist -

Your view is related to mine.

Under Shannon information theory, information is defined by the observer. A common simple illustration of this is to note that for someone trying to draw a topographic map, local variations in altitude are "information". Yet to someone trying to measure the diameter of the earth, they may function as "noise".

Many as aspects of DNA molecules are (not "have", although that usage is probably tolerable) information in various contexts.

If a human scientist is sequencing a genome, then the nucleotide sequence is information.

When the chemical nature of DNA was being worked out, the atoms and atomic bonds of the individual purine and pyrimidine bases were information, and, of course, the double helix structure of the DNA molecule was once intensely sought information.

Gerald Berry's comment makes no sense.

Gerald Berry said: I just happened to come across this blog, so rather than scanning through all of your topics, could you please direct me to the topic that deals with what you believe to be the source of information within the DNA molecule?

(When life first "evolved")

1) What is an example of something that is not intelligently designed?

harold said: Information is defined by the observer, under Shannon information theory.

Gerald Berry said: I just happened to come across this blog, so rather than scanning through all of your topics, could you please direct me to the topic that deals with what you believe to be the source of information within the DNA molecule? (When life first "evolved")

If one assumes that there is "information" in DNA, there are some fairly obvious questions which follow from that assumption.

First: How did that "information" get there? You can say "well, the Designer put it there," but that isn't helpful -- even if that's true, you now need to know what the Designer did to put the "information" in DNA.

Second: What's the difference between DNA that contains 'information', and information that does not contain 'information'? As a more-or-less concrete example, let's say that Dr. Fred is observing some pondwater. He sees an amoeba divide into two amoebae, Amoeba Tom and Amoeba Dick. Normally, Tom and Dick would have identical DNA sequences (asexual reproduction isn't good for introducing variations into DNA), but as it happens, there was a chemical glitch in this particular act of asexual reproduction, so Amoeba Tom has DNA sequence A, and Amoeba Dick has DNA sequence A'. Dr. Fred, blissfully unaware of the fact that Tom and Dick have different DNA sequences, grabs up Amoeba Tom in a specimen vial and takes Tom back to his lab. In his lab, Dr. Fred uses his intelligence to edit the DNA of Amoeba Tom, changing its genetic sequence... and by an amazing coincidence, it just so happens that Dr. Fred ends up changing Tom's DNA sequence from its original A, to the A' that amoeba-brother DIck has. Thus, Amoeba Tom and Amoeba Dick both have the same DNA sequence... but Tom's DNA sequence is the result of Intelligent Design, while Amoeba Dick's DNA sequence is the result of mindless natural forces.

Does Tom's DNA sequence have 'information' in it as a result of it being the product of Intelligent Design, 'information' which doesn't exist in Dick's DNA sequence?
In his researches, Dr. Fred sequences the DNA of both Amoebas. He gives both DNA sequences to a colleague, Dr. Harry... but Dr. Fred neglects to identify which DNA sequence came from Amoeba Tom, and which from Amoeba Dick. Can Dr. Harry identify which of the two DNA sequences came from Intelligently Designed Amoeba Tom, and which from mindless-natural-forces Amoeba Dick?

Third: If "information" is something which an Intelligent Designer can add to a DNA sequence, this implies that said "information" is separate and distinct from the physical atoms and atomic bonds of which that DNA sequence is composed. This, in turn, implies that it should be possible to have two different DNA sequences which are utterly identical in the purely physical terms of atoms and atomic bonds and yada yada yada, while, at the same time, possessing very different amounts of 'information' -- and these two DNA sequences should have very different biological effects, based on the different amounts of 'information' they contain, even though they have exactly the same nucleotides in exactly the same order. How is that supposed to work?

It looks like Gerald Berry is deaf, though clearly not mute, throwing out a stock creationist sound bite but disinterested in being bitten back.

However, I must say that a few years ago the "creationist information theory" game was capable of sowing confusion, but its weaknesses -- it has little else -- and trickeries have now become common knowledge and are quickly pointed out.

mrg said: It looks like Gerald Berry is deaf, though clearly not mute, throwing out a stock creationist sound bite but disinterested in being bitten back. However, I must say that a few years ago the "creationist information theory" game was capable of sowing confusion, but its weaknesses -- it has little else -- and trickeries have now become common knowledge and are quickly pointed out.

The repercussions of the dishonesty instiute's work in texas and louisiana are still being felt.

Here's a note regarding the latest news from both states. Note also the sample info being pushed for inclusion in texas from a group called "international database."

http://blog.au.org/2011/04/29/biological-warfare-battles-under-way-in-texas-and-louisiana-over-science-education/?utm_source=au-homepage&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Recently-on-homepage

"evolution predicts that these sequences are unlikely to have any major role in biological processes – but, of course, there’s always the potential, however small or unlikely, for something to evolve out of seemingly nothing."

Opponents of evolutionary biology typically confuse these two issues, which allows them to zip back and forth between them, so that the debate gets muddled. Explaining how DNA sequences come to contain lots of information that makes the organism well adapted involves mutation, migration, genetic drift, and – most important of all – natural selection. It does not require us to have a detailed scenario for the origin of the first DNA molecule.

The post is about attorney/science guy Luskin, and his brave? attempts at co-opting (stealing/raping/misrepresenting) years of dilligent scientific investigation for his cause/ideology/dream/fantasy/or maybe, religion? Gerald Barry loves the afore-mentioned Lusk (Lush)as a principled warrior in the battle to have reason replaced by idiocy. Unfortunately, finding that his clear (commonsense) arguments are routinely torn to shit, he has decided to go home, and I believe he has taken his ball too.

steve p. said:

Opponents of evolutionary biology typically confuse these two issues, which allows them to zip back and forth between them, so that the debate gets muddled. Explaining how DNA sequences come to contain lots of information that makes the organism well adapted involves mutation, migration, genetic drift, and – most important of all – natural selection. It does not require us to have a detailed scenario for the origin of the first DNA molecule.

Prof. Felsenstein, in the same vein, detecting design would not require us to provide a detailed scenario for the origin of that design, something seemingly always required from design skeptics. Could you remark on how your comments speak to a different context? In what way is your PoV categorically different from what design advocates have been saying?

Steve P. -

Here is an incredibly simple question for you. I will hold off on other questions and give you a chance to answer.

What is an example of something that is not "designed"?

Clearly, anyone who claims that "design" can be detected should be able to answer this question. Indeed, although answering this question is not sufficient, it is clearly necessary. If you can't even give an example of something that is not designed, game over.

So what is an example of something that is not "designed"?

steve p. said:

Opponents of evolutionary biology typically confuse these two issues, which allows them to zip back and forth between them, so that the debate gets muddled. Explaining how DNA sequences come to contain lots of information that makes the organism well adapted involves mutation, migration, genetic drift, and – most important of all – natural selection. It does not require us to have a detailed scenario for the origin of the first DNA molecule.

Prof. Felsenstein, in the same vein, detecting design would not require us to provide a detailed scenario for the origin of that design, something seemingly always required from design skeptics. Could you remark on how your comments speak to a different context? In what way is your PoV categorically different from what design advocates have been saying?

steve p. said: Prof. Felsenstein, in the same vein, detecting design would not require us to provide a detailed scenario for the origin of that design, something seemingly always required from design skeptics. Could you remark on how your comments speak to a different context? In what way is your PoV categorically different from what design advocates have been saying?

Sylvilagus -

Very good points. I can assure you that Steve P. won't have a meaningful response.

His comment about pseudogenes was extraordinarily silly, as well. By definition, pseudogenes are copies of functional genes, but which now lack all the elements required for protein expression. He could have found that out with a quick visit to Wikipedia or Google. Their existence is strong proof of gene duplication, and they are certainly hypothetically a potential source of novel function (if later mutations were to re-establish expression). However, rather than learn what a pseudogene is before blathering, he chose to bluff by "contradicting" Jack Scanlan's accurate comment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudogene

However, ID/creationism advocates will play the game of contradicting scientific evidence and logic for an indefinite amount of time. But that isn't evidence for ID/creationism, it's just (incorrect) contradiction of science and logic.

The only possible logical presentation of ID/creationism as an alternative to the theory of evolution is to -

1) Present the positive evidence for ID/creationism
2) Acknowledge the positive evidence for biological evolution
3) Explain how ID/creationism is a better explanation; ideally by proposing a test that will distinguish between the two alternatives.

Obviously, we all know that no-one has made the slightest effort to do any such thing so far, but I'm willing to discomfort the likes of Steve P. by giving them a chance to do so.

So again, Steve P, if you are reading this, let's start at the very beginning. If you can detect design in a meaningful way, you must have an example of something that is not designed. Give me an example of something that is not designed.

harold said: What is an example of something that is not "designed"?

harold said: However, ID/creationism advocates will play the game of contradicting scientific evidence and logic for an indefinite amount of time. But that isn't evidence for ID/creationism, it's just (incorrect) contradiction of science and logic.

Sylvilagus said: Design detection as actually practiced in archeology, for example, always relies on detailed knowledge of human technology, human goals, and human cognitive abilities.

harold said: His comment about pseudogenes was extraordinarily silly, as well.

You also need to differentiate between design and emergent properties. Take the hexagon shape:
A hex wrench was specifically designed to be hexagonal. So a hexagon should be evidence for design, right? Wrong! Here are three examples of hexagons that weren't designed;

1. Certain minerals form hexagonal crystals. They aren't designed that way-- it's just the most natural way for their atoms to fit together. (And, yes, I know Mike E. can explain that a lot better than I did.)

2. Honeybees form honeycombs with hexagonal holes. Again, not designed. It's just that when a worker bee is digging a cavity, and she has six identical-twin sisters all around her all doing the same, the easiest shape for everybody to make is a hexagon.

3. The country of France is hexagonal-- so much so that the French use "the Hexagon" as a nickname. In this case, we have detailed, historical records of how the country developed. We *know* that there were intelligent actors consciously trying to design a modern state. We also know they would have found it trivially easy to sit down and draw a perfect hexagon on the map. But in fact, the Hexagon was never designed. It just came out that way, mainly as a function of geographical barriers. (The Atlantic, the Pyrenees, the Mediterranean and the Alps form 4 sides of the hexagon.)

So, even if you recognize a pattern that is *sometimes* the result of design AND even if you know for a fact that there were intelligent agents involved in the creation of the pattern-- you still don't have proof of design unless you understand what really went on in the process of creation.

That is the problem facing the intelligent-design advocates. So far, they haven't taken any steps at all toward addressing the problem, let alone solving it.

TomS said:

harold said: What is an example of something that is not "designed"?

I, too, would like to hear of an example of something that is not designed. i would be interested in even a hypothetical, something that doesn't happen to exist, but would give us a clue as to what the difference is between "designed" and "not designed".

Joe Felsenstein said: Gerald Berry and Steve P. seem to have disappeared. I wonder why.

hoary puccoon said: You also need to differentiate between design and emergent properties.

Italy resembles a boot kicking a peeble.

It's obviously designed. By Jupiter and Hera.

Hera was Greek. ;)

Henry J said: Hera was Greek. ;)

John Kwok said: Not only that hoary, but it can be shown via computer simulations that "design" can be an emergent property, as Ken Miller has noted eloquently in his "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul".

Their main hypothesis was disproved by 1860.

TomS said:

Their main hypothesis was disproved by 1860.

It was effectively addressed in the 18th century by David Hume and by Immanuel Kant. Paley's version of Intelligent Design was published in the early 1800s and, as hoary observes, had inspired Darwin (Indeed, he thought it was true when he embarked on HMS Beagle; subsequent field work in South America, and especially, the Galapagos Islands, demonstrated to him that Paley's concept couldn't account for what he was discovering from both the fossil record and living organisms.).

hoary puccoon said:

John Kwok said: Not only that hoary, but it can be shown via computer simulations that "design" can be an emergent property, as Ken Miller has noted eloquently in his "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul".

Yeah, that was where Darwin-- who read and reread William Paley-- got started. The ID crowd have nothing, but really nothing. Their main hypothesis was disproved by 1860.

steve p. said: detecting design would not require us to provide a detailed scenario for the origin of that design, something seemingly always required from design skeptics.

eric said: The real problem Design has is that you think God did the designing.

Dembski suggested CSI as a measure of the "quantity of design" an object possesses. If it has enough CSI, then it must have been Designed.

But of course, the problem lies with the specification component. Specification doesn't mean description, it means what something is FOR. So if you use a brick or a chair as a doorstop, you have changed the specification of that brick or chair. Conclusion: specification is subjective and arbitrary.

If some space alien left something on your doorstep during the night, you would have no way of collecting a single clue about it. It might be a chunk of wherever the alien lives, it might be a work of art or a tool or the alien's lunch. It might be the alien itself! How could you possibly create a specification? The alien's own specification would probably lie outside all human experience and be meaningless to us. Conclusion: specification ALWAYS requires contextual knowledge external to the object itself.

Now, the solution to these problems seems straightforward: Design is a PROCESS, and "a design" is an outcome of a design process. To produce a specification, you either have to know that process, or you have to make something up.

Dembski recognized this, I think. But he HAD to say that Design was intrinsic to the object, like mass or color, because otherwise he would have had no choice but to address the nature of the Designer and the means and purposes that Designer has. And doing so would render CSI instantly religious, the very thing he was trying to evade.

So: design is not something an object has. Design is something we project onto an object, depending on OUR purposes. When the alien object example was presented to Dembski, he basically shut up and disappeared. Haven't heard anything at all from him lately.

thankyou