The Sterility of Intelligent Design

Well you know it's a conspiracy. The editors just won't publish anything that they don't agree with so you can't really expect that anyone could publish in their journals. What? Oh ... never mind.

To be science, to be fertile, ID would have to identify, and provide evidence for, distinguishable cause and effect relationships in life.

The "effects" they claim are vague and deliberately conflated with the effects of evolution, while the "cause" is simply called "design," which is in fact a vague general term covering many specific causes.

Is there anything odd about the fact that their match-up of "cause" and "effect" highly overlap theistic notions of general causes and general effects, and have little or nothing to do with the specific causes causing specific effects as is required in science? Evolution in prokaryotes produces certain sorts of relationships caused in part by lateral transfers, while most eukaryotes have almost exclusively vertical/splitting relationships. All IDiocy can do is to claim that it's all "designed" wherever evolution becomes taboo to them, something else that is altogether vague.

Glen Davidson

So what are their handsome salaries based on? Church talks?

Calling these "research" articles is generous in the extreme. Neither one of them even has a material and methods section. I guess when you have no lab and no training and no desire to do any real experiment, it's kind of hard to publish a real "research" article in a real "journal". Has any real scientist reviewed these two dogs yet?

Sterile is a bit too kind.

"Bio-Complexity" is a failed legal ruse that lives on as a ruse, more than seven years after the original legal justification was crushed. It's plausible that the editors actually do get paid, and if they do, whoever the money comes from is a fool almost beyond foolishness.

In 1988 the Supreme Court found, despite the best efforts of a younger Scalia, that teaching sectarian science denial, as "science", at taxpayer expense, in public schools, was a very clear violation of the First Amendment.

Almost immediately, "intelligent design" was born, and marketed as a potential way to "court proof" evolution denial in public schools.

As was repeatedly noted by those who scorned them, the purveyors of the ruse actually did everything possible to prevent a legal test of "ID". They knew that indefinitely implying that they were working on a way to court-proof creationism in public schools meant big money. Actually showing that their ruse wouldn't work was the last thing they wanted.

However, they were undone by the equally authoritarian, but perhaps more honest, tendencies of the Thomas Moore Legal Center. The supporters of TMLC, unlike typical right wing authoritarians, are actually quite tolerant of money wasted on hopeless symbolic fights. The TMLC usually loses in court, but the money is there for them to fight, hopelessly, again and again. The Vatican actually doesn't deny evolution, and ID was claiming "not to be religious" in the pre-Dover era, but the TMLC and their pizza-chain-owning supporters understood perfectly well that "the designer" was implied to be the Abrahamic God, and to the dismay of the DI, the TMLC forced one of their characteristic symbolically hopeless charges in Dover, in a largely unwanted defense of "ID".

Granted, the DI fellows are making out like bandits now, but they were making out like oil sheikhs before Dover. The hard core money is still there, but all the trendiness is gone.

Bio-Complexity is just a relic of the old medicine show, left over from before the day when the TMLC actually drank the snake oil in public, and thus caused the rest of the crowd to wander away. "We have a journal with a fancy name that will someday disprove evolution" was the con. That con blew up in Dover, but there are still a few saps to be milked, so it continues, but Time Magazine doesn't care anymore.

(Incidentally, although the I Ching has 64 hexagrams, it does not resemble the genetic code.

Each of the 64 hexagrams of the I Ching has a unique name and "meaning". The genetic code is redundant, and the I Ching is not redundant.

Fernando Castro-Chavez, whose name may or may not be his real name, and if it isn't his real name, may be a bit confused about the nature of the DI, seems to be a sincere and original crackpot. I would argue that his amusing ideas are too good for Bio-Complexity, and that isn't intended as a strong compliment to his amusing ideas.)

For Intelligent Design to be a fertile science, its proponents must demonstrate how Intelligent Design can explain phenomena, and its proponents must also demonstrate how Intelligent Design applies to/can be applied to the real world.

Unfortunately, Intelligent Design proponents have repeatedly shown that they are all, at very best, extraordinarily hesitant to do either, preferring, instead, to bellyache about how terrible Darwinism (sic) is, or whine very angrily how Evolutionism (sic) is dying (for the last 150+ years). At very best, a few proponents will put forth some nonsensical, ultimately untestable armchair navel contemplation, and wave their hands very hard in hopes that The Blue Fairy/God/The Intelligent Designer will magically transform their pious nonsense into an articulate scientific theory.

This is like saying how many Hollywood stars agree with your political party makes you right!
your counting heads only.
Well then count the heads of Americans and admit creationism(s) are well supported by intelligent thinking people in their tens of millions.

Its about the truth.
its about the merits of the case.
its about intelligent appreciation of the facts behind the merits behind the case.
At any one point in any contention in history, anything, its only a coincedence if lots of people (or the right people) agree with the right answer.

Is Mr Shallit saying that chunks of papers by ID would of meant this year that ID etc was a powerful contender for origin truth?
I bet it would of made no difference to him!
Wait till next year!!

Except, Robert Byers, your rant and pitiful appeal to popularity still can't explain why we should accept Intelligent Design as being magically superior to Science even though it can not explain anything.

"So what are their handsome salaries based on?"

Their salaries are paid to a considerable degree by donations from wealthy theocrats.

Is Mr Shallit saying that chunks of papers by ID would of [sic] meant this year that ID etc was a powerful contender for origin truth?

apokryltaros said: Except, Robert Byers, your rant and pitiful appeal to popularity still can't explain why we should accept Intelligent Design as being magically superior to Science even though it can not explain anything.

Robert Byers said: Its about the truth. its about the merits of the case. its about intelligent appreciation of the facts behind the merits behind the case.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q said:

apokryltaros said: Except, Robert Byers, your rant and pitiful appeal to popularity still can't explain why we should accept Intelligent Design as being magically superior to Science even though it can not explain anything.

ID explains everything ... for Bob.

ksplawn said:

Robert Byers said: Its about the truth. its about the merits of the case. its about intelligent appreciation of the facts behind the merits behind the case.

If the case has so much merit, why isn't it generating more research by anybody (even its advocates)?

I would listen to Hollywood stars on something that they are qualified to discuss - the pitfalls of fame, perhaps. I listen to evolutionary biologists on the same basis. I would not listen to people who have never worked in a field if they differ from the people who have. I am certainly not going to listen to some whackjob ignoramus who thinks that marsupials resemble placental mammals are genetically closer to those mammals than they are to each other.

Is there something odd, or difficult to understand about this?

To answer my own question: well, yes there is.

The second-last sentence should read "...whackjob ignoramus who thinks that IF marsupials resemble placental mammals, THEY are genetically closer to those mammals than they are to each other."

ID craves the credibility of science, but isn't willing to do the work to earn it.

Byers, why do you not answer so many of our questions?

You never answered this question (click here) about this link. The thread with this question is now closed, so it would probably be best if you post any reply to this question in the Bathroom Wall. I would have no problem if moderators move this post (and any replies by Byers to this post) to the BW.

You also never answered this question (click here). This particular thread is still open so you reply there.

There are plenty of other questions from me, from DS, Dave Luckett, apokryltaros, and others that you have ignored. But perhaps you could at least start with my two, here and here.

Robert Byers said: Well then count the heads of Americans and admit creationism(s) are well supported by intelligent thinking people in their tens of millions.

ksplawn said: If the case has so much merit, why isn't it generating more research by anybody (even its advocates)?

The ID Theme Song? "I got plenty of nothing, And nothing's plenty for me"

Karen S. said: The ID Theme Song? "I got plenty of nothing, And nothing's plenty for me"

Does anyone else find it amusing that the "editorial board" for the "journal" contains thirty people, and yet they can't get a single original research article published between them? it's obviously a conspiracy by the board to sabotage their own agenda!

(Another intelligent design journal, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, hasn’t had a new issue since 2005.)
This says it all!

This is like saying how many Hollywood stars agree with your political party makes you right! your counting heads only.

NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism."

By contrast, pseudoscience is sterile: the ideas, such as they are, lead to no new insights, suggest no experiments, and are espoused by single crackpots or a small community of like-minded ideologues. The work gets few or no citations in the scientific literature, and the citations they do get are predominantly self-citations.

Carl Drews said: The original post stated:

By contrast, pseudoscience is sterile: the ideas, such as they are, lead to no new insights, suggest no experiments, and are espoused by single crackpots or a small community of like-minded ideologues. The work gets few or no citations in the scientific literature, and the citations they do get are predominantly self-citations.

This description would party apply to Alfred Wegener's early work on continental drift from about 1915. He was working alone with very little support from other scientists. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists organized a conference in 1925 specifically to oppose Wegener's hypothesis. Working in 1925, how would you detect that Wegener's theory was not pseudoscience? What markers would tell you that continental drift, even if unlikely to be true at that point, was a bona fide scientific proposal and not "sterile"? For those PT readers unfamiliar with the story, Alfred Wegener died on the Greenland ice cap in 1931. It was not until the 1960s that Wegener's theory gained widespread acceptance with new evidence in its favor. But I'm asking about 1925.

This description would party apply to Alfred Wegener’s early work on continental drift from about 1915. He was working alone with very little support from other scientists. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists organized a conference in 1925 specifically to oppose Wegener’s hypothesis. Working in 1925, how would you detect that Wegener’s theory was not pseudoscience? What markers would tell you that continental drift, even if unlikely to be true at that point, was a bona fide scientific proposal and not “sterile”? For those PT readers unfamiliar with the story, Alfred Wegener died on the Greenland ice cap in 1931. It was not until the 1960s that Wegener’s theory gained widespread acceptance with new evidence in its favor. But I’m asking about 1925.

Carl Drews said: The original post stated:

By contrast, pseudoscience is sterile: the ideas, such as they are, lead to no new insights, suggest no experiments, and are espoused by single crackpots or a small community of like-minded ideologues. The work gets few or no citations in the scientific literature, and the citations they do get are predominantly self-citations.

This description would party apply to Alfred Wegener's early work on continental drift from about 1915. He was working alone with very little support from other scientists. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists organized a conference in 1925 specifically to oppose Wegener's hypothesis. Working in 1925, how would you detect that Wegener's theory was not pseudoscience? What markers would tell you that continental drift, even if unlikely to be true at that point, was a bona fide scientific proposal and not "sterile"? For those PT readers unfamiliar with the story, Alfred Wegener died on the Greenland ice cap in 1931. It was not until the 1960s that Wegener's theory gained widespread acceptance with new evidence in its favor. But I'm asking about 1925.

DS said: Does anyone else find it amusing that the "editorial board" for the "journal" contains thirty people, and yet they can't get a single original research article published between them? it's obviously a conspiracy by the board to sabotage their own agenda!

Working in 1925, how would you detect that Wegener’s theory was not pseudoscience?

There is a difference between wrong science and pseudoscience. But, in any case, as DS implies, Wegener had plenty of evidence -- not least the facts that the continents on the east and west sides of the Atlantic were mirror images of each other and that fossils of related species were found on opposite sides of the "mirror" but not elsewhere. He also found evidence that a certain island had drifted ~1 km westward in about 70 y and concluded that the distribution of elevations on the earth's surface was inconsistent with simple heating and cooling. Scientists could not accept Wegener's theory not because it was unsupported but because they thought that the earth was rigid and could not propose a plausible source of enough force to move continents. When the evidence of material welling up from the ocean floor was finally adduced, the theory was accepted virtually overnight.

Carl Drews said: The original post stated:

By contrast, pseudoscience is sterile: the ideas, such as they are, lead to no new insights, suggest no experiments, and are espoused by single crackpots or a small community of like-minded ideologues. The work gets few or no citations in the scientific literature, and the citations they do get are predominantly self-citations.

Working in 1925, how would you detect that Wegener's theory was not pseudoscience? What markers would tell you that continental drift, even if unlikely to be true at that point, was a bona fide scientific proposal and not "sterile"?

DS said: You could make some predictions based on your hypothesis. You could do a statistical analysis of the coastlines of Africa and South America. You could do an analysis of the geographic distribution of plants and animals in Africa and South America. You could get two pegs and a string and put them across a chasm caused by continental drift in say Iceland and actually measure the amount of movement per year. You could publish your findings in a real journal and subject it to review by real experts in the field. Or you could form a club and get your own journal. Get your friends to be the editors Write a bunch of nonsense claiming that you were right without ever doing any actual experiments. Then go to court to get your ideas taught to school children. See the thing is that even if your hypothesis is correct, there is a right way and a wrong way to do science. The pretty good book says: "By their deeds ye shall know them." Nuf said.

Also, when asked for a mechanism, drift proponents didn't complain that science was "materialism" or "naturalism" that didn't allow for fictional entities as possible mechanisms (the essence of the IDiots' attacks on epistemology, although they'd never state it that honestly).

When your complaint with science involves the very bases of science (the matter is fundamentally about evidence, not about "materialism," etc.), you're not just wrong, you're against the very possibility for doing honest science.

Glen Davidson

You could get two pegs and a string and put them across a chasm caused by continental drift in say Iceland and actually measure the amount of movement per year. You could publish your findings in a real journal and subject it to review by real experts in the field.

• lead to no new insights
• suggest no experiments

• espoused by single crackpots
• small community of like-minded ideologues

• few or no citations in the scientific literature [within a few years]
• predominantly self-citations

You could get two pegs and a string and put them across a chasm caused by continental drift in say Iceland and actually measure the amount of movement per year.

Re: Wegener. He may also have been in the position of string theorists today: interesting hypothesis but without the technological foundation to really test it. Sometimes that's going to happen: a scientist is going to come up with an interesting but pracitally untestable idea. In which case, it may lie fallow for a while.

I think we can still distinguish between ideas like that and pseudoscience using standard indicators. There are many collections of those, all slightly different. Here's one set by our own RBH.

Pretty much all such lists have some testability criteria in them, some form of 'real science testable, pseudoscience not.' Wegener's hypothesis may have failed that one in 1925. But even if it did, that does not mean it can't be distinguished from ideas that fail many of the criteria. Failing one or two may be a warning sign, but its still comparatively better than something like creationism, which (depending on the list) probably fails most of them.

Regarding whether a proposed theory can be useful before the mechanism is known, just look at gravity. Last I heard, the mechanism for that had yet to be established.

Carl Drews said: ... NOT valid indicators:

• espoused by single crackpots
• small community of like-minded ideologues

... I don't think the single crackpot / small community is a very good indicator, anyway; the ID community is uncomfortably large.

Carl Drews said: Thanks for those observations. I will summarize the Indicators of Pseudo-science that Jeffrey Shallit originally proposed: Valid indicators:

• lead to no new insights
• suggest no experiments

NOT valid indicators:

• espoused by single crackpots
• small community of like-minded ideologues

Debatable indicators:

• few or no citations in the scientific literature [within a few years]
• predominantly self-citations

I don't think the single crackpot / small community is a very good indicator, anyway; the ID community is uncomfortably large. And I appreciate the new indicators about testability and explanatory power.

It helps to consider the indicators in aggregate, no doubt. Giving off so many tells reduces the chance of a false positive and makes for the start of a useful metric in order to gauge confidence levels of pseudoscienstry. Something that most wouldn't consider a "valid indicator" on its own would gain more standing in the presence of others.

That's why we have the Crackpot Index!

We have done this all a few years ago.

And, as ksplawn reminds us, we also have John Baez’s Crackpot Index.

Perhaps the line of demarcation lies at sterility after all. When one tries to impose gibberish onto nature, nothing comes back no matter how you spin it. The ID/creationists may have done us all a favor by demonstrating that point dramatically for something like 50 years now.

•suggest no experiments

There is no easy, simple test for pseudoscience except to show that a theory meets the definition of a pseudoscience (e.g., uses the veneer of science without doing any actual hypothesis testing). That is, you have to do some hard work to establish that a field is a pseudoscience (and not, say, bad science, good but turned out wrong science, fraudulent science...or even worse, good science that you've rejected for your own fallacious reasons). All the other "indicators" listed are useful only as warning signs rather than definitive diagnostic tests.

harold said:

•suggest no experiments

... I would like to point out that this is THE characteristic of pseudoscience.

In the case of ID/creationism, it is quite a bit easier. The concepts of ID/creationism are bent and broken versions of real science; and they have been bent and broken in characteristic ways that make them comport with sectarian beliefs.

It is a bit easier to go directly back to Henry Morris and his Institute for Creation “Research” and start with Morris’s mangled versions of science. He deliberately set out, for example, to mischaracterize the concepts of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics so that they were in direct conflict; thereby “proving" with an “enviable law of physics” that evolution is impossible. The narrative he was trying to write was blatantly obvious right from the beginning. Then he and Gish just backfilled with more mischaracterizations from geology and biology.

The spin-off called “intelligent design” inherited all of Morris’s misconceptions and built on them; but the ID pushers didn’t recognize these misconceptions because, by then, they already believed they were real science. Most ID advocates today, including the gurus like Dembski, Behe, Abel, and the rest of the science/history/philosophy rewriters at the Discovery Institute don’t appear to know about their own misconceptions.

These particular misconceptions, once one knows what they are, become the characteristic shibboleths of the ID/creationist movement even when they try to hide behind other motives.

So, in that sense, I think we are fairly fortunate to have such a complete record of such a set of characteristic misconceptions and misrepresentations. This debunking has been the work of many people over the years, and a lot of credit goes to the very detailed archival records now at the National Center for Science Education. It makes the identification of ID/creationists much easier because they can no longer disguise themselves. Their stench is just too characteristic; but they can’t smell themselves.

I have been trying to think back on how various forms of pseudoscience in the past were promulgated.

If I am remembering correctly, there were only about three that had powerful and well-organized socio/political tactics behind them. The ones that come to mind are Deutsche Physik in Nazi Germany, Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, and ID/creationism in the United States.

Can anyone think of any others?

Much of the other pseudoscience seems to be associated with specific individuals or with spontaneous fads. The New Age Movement had some pretty goofy stuff like crystals, pyramid power, auras, Kirlian photography woo woo, and a hodge-podge collection of myth and old superstitions. There have been the channeling of spirits of the dead, taro cards, telekinesis, and all the other favorites associated with magic, ghosts, etc.; but none of these, though they may have caught public attention as fads, was ever pushed by organized political means.

There have always been the crackpots of perpetual motion of various forms; especially perpetual motion hidden in the “mysterious laws” of electricity and magnetism. But thinking back on all these other pseudoscience fads, while many were marketed in a commercial way, none but those three I mentioned had well-planned, ideologically-driven political tactics behind them.

Hah! Just thought of two more; climate change denial and the attempts by tobacco companies to discredit the research on the health effects of tobacco.

Dave Wisker said: ID craves the credibility of science, but isn't willing to do the work to earn it.

How about racist-motivated eugenics in the US?

Or the appropriation of "survival of the fittest" by laissez faire capitalism?

Mike Elzinga said: I have been trying to think back on how various forms of pseudoscience in the past were promulgated. If I am remembering correctly, there were only about three that had powerful and well-organized socio/political tactics behind them. The ones that come to mind are Deutsche Physik in Nazi Germany, Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, and ID/creationism in the United States. Can anyone think of any others?

Robert Byers said: Creationists are very confident they do better or as much "science" in their subjects.

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said: Well then count the heads of Americans and admit creationism(s) are well supported by intelligent thinking people in their tens of millions. Well here it is! The dismissal of the people to judge the merits of the case. Your saying ONLY these may make the parachute. Well then only the people who carefully study the subject should be regarded. Then its NOT the scientists who should be regarded about evolution but only those who demonstrate its the work to study the issue. this is why the "steve" thing fails. There are heaps of steve's who agree with creationism. Yet your saying no to our steve's but then listing Steve's who know nothing about evolution much beyond high school because its not their subject yet are scientists ruins your case. If only those who study these things can comment then it reduces your side to a small fraction and increases our presence because we do have people who study it. A line of reasoning. Finally the people are always presented with the "evidence" for evolution based on the presumption they can weigh the evidence and come to intelligent decisions. The decision, despite little creationist chance of reaching the people, is a defeat for evolution. They couldn't make a good case where there was no good case. Counting Steves won't do it after all. Their counting is as poor as their investigation of nature.

Would you use a parachute that was designed, manufactured and packed by your "tens of millions of intelligent thinking people" (whether Americans, Canadians, Europeans, etc)? If not, then why do you trust these same "tens of millions of intelligent thinking people" instead of experienced trained professional biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, geologists?

Just Bob said: How about racist-motivated eugenics in the US? Or the appropriation of "survival of the fittest" by laissez faire capitalism?

Robert Byers said:

Dave Wisker said: ID craves the credibility of science, but isn't willing to do the work to earn it.

ID/YEC strives for the truth and to overthrow wrong/less then sharp conclusions claimed to be based on natures evidence. Creationists are very confident they do better or as much "science" in their subjects. Where's the judge?

ksplawn said:

Robert Byers said:

Dave Wisker said: ID craves the credibility of science, but isn't willing to do the work to earn it.

ID/YEC strives for the truth and to overthrow wrong/less then sharp conclusions claimed to be based on natures evidence. Creationists are very confident they do better or as much "science" in their subjects. Where's the judge?

The proof is in the pudding. Or rather, the journals. Or rather, it isn't in the journals.

In other words, Robert Byers, why can't you show us why Young Earth Creationism/Intelligent Design is a fertile science?

Are you too busy Lying for Jesus, or are you too stupid to care?

More pseudoscience for a good laugh. Wheee!

Apparently Snelling can’t even do a high school level physics calculation to show how much energy would have been dumped onto the Earth’s surface. It works out to something like 400 megatons of TNT going off every second for every square meter of the Earth’s surface; including every square meter of the surface of the ark.

And he even suggests superheated steam and lava coming up form the Earth’s interior.

Just wave the hands and all is explained.

Oh; and make sure that PhD comes after your name. That makes it all good!

Jeffrey Shallit said:

Carl Drews said: Thanks for those observations. I will summarize the Indicators of Pseudo-science that Jeffrey Shallit originally proposed: Valid indicators:

• lead to no new insights
• suggest no experiments

NOT valid indicators:

• espoused by single crackpots
• small community of like-minded ideologues

Debatable indicators:

• few or no citations in the scientific literature [within a few years]
• predominantly self-citations

I don't think the single crackpot / small community is a very good indicator, anyway; the ID community is uncomfortably large. And I appreciate the new indicators about testability and explanatory power.

Carl Drews, and some others on this thread, are making a silly mistake. It is unrealistic to believe there will be necessary and sufficient conditions that serve to separate science from pseudoscience, and it is foolish to discard a criterion because it is not perfect. Think of trying to detect scam e-mails: things like, is it from Nigeria? Are there misspellings? Does the signature match the name in the header? are all useful criteria to detect scammers. But of course there could be legit e-mail from Nigeria and there could be more sophisticated scammers who know how to spell. That doesn't mean that the criteria I listed are useless. So I don't accept Carl's classification of "valid" and "invalid" indicators, and I continue to maintain that my observation that intelligent design's own flagship journal can't find very much to publish, is indicative of the quality of the field. Could I be proven wrong? Sure, but it's a pretty good bet I won't be.

Sterility indeed.

DS said: Sterility indeed.

jjm said:

Robert Byers said: Creationists are very confident they do better or as much "science" in their subjects.

Can you explain the scientific method to us and relate it back to that statement with examples. What i predict you would find, if you understand what "science" means, is that they aren't doing any!

Robert Byers said:

jjm said:

Robert Byers said: Creationists are very confident they do better or as much "science" in their subjects.

Can you explain the scientific method to us and relate it back to that statement with examples. What i predict you would find, if you understand what "science" means, is that they aren't doing any!

its off thread. However I don't believe there is any species called science. its just people thinking about stuff. The world however sees science AS a high standard of investigation that can DEMAND high confidence in its conclusions. They might add its still yet smarter people doing this methodology and so quite a nod to truth. Creationists do the same, or better, level of investigation into origins while insisting its, unlike others, difficult to bring a high standard as its about past and gone events. Speculation/hypothesis becomes theory way too quick in origin subjects everywhere.

Robert Byers said: However I don't believe there is any species called science. its just people thinking about stuff. The world however sees science AS a high standard of investigation that can DEMAND high confidence in its conclusions. They might add its still yet smarter people doing this methodology and so quite a nod to truth. Creationists do the same, or better, level of investigation into origins while insisting its, unlike others, difficult to bring a high standard as its about past and gone events. Speculation/hypothesis becomes theory way too quick in origin subjects everywhere.

Robert Byers said: However I don't believe there is any species called science. its just people thinking about stuff.

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: However I don't believe there is any species called science. its just people thinking about stuff. ... [and so on]

This is a Poe.

Mike Elzinga said: I have been trying to think back on how various forms of pseudoscience in the past were promulgated.

ID claims it has the better evidence and the criticism here is not about its evidence but a seeming inactivity. In fact one could say ID’s critics admit its intellectual power because your indeed not criticizing heaps of papers on micro points. You say it has not much reading material but it has said a lot to be noted and opposed. A indicator of good ideas trumping volume of bad ones I think.

Joe Felsenstein said:

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: However I don't believe there is any species called science. its just people thinking about stuff. ... [and so on]

This is a Poe.

No, no Poe. All you have to do is read a number of Byers's comments and it will become apparent that no one here at PT has anything near enough imagination to come up with anything like that. What does amaze me even more is that there are people here at PT who think that if they ask Byers a tough question that he will actually respond in some halfways cogent way. And that there will be some halfways illuminating debate. And that this will not derail the thread.

Chris Lawson said:

harold said:

•suggest no experiments

... I would like to point out that this is THE characteristic of pseudoscience.

I disagree, harold. Phrenology, homeopathy, the autism-vaccine hypothesis, and Lysenkoism are all pseudosciences that are eminently testable. They are pseudosciences because their proponents pretend to have scientific validation *despite* the negative evidence from testing.

TomS said:

Mike Elzinga said: I have been trying to think back on how various forms of pseudoscience in the past were promulgated.

The problem with ID is that it makes no claims about anything. It provides no account for "why this rather than something else". It does not attempt to tell us "what happened and when". All it says is that there is something wrong with evolutionary biology. I wouldn't call it "pseudoscience". It isn't like alchemy or astrology. It is more similar to an advertising campaign. Especially like a negative political advertisement, where it's all about how the other guy is bad, not about your guy.

its off thread. However I don’t believe there is any species called byers. its just people thinking about stuff and posting nonsensicals.

The rational world however sees science AS a high standard of investigation that can DEMAND high confidence in its conclusions. They might add its still yet smarter people doing this methodology and so quite a nod to truth.

Creationists do not do the same, or worse, level of investigation into origins while insisting its, (unlike others who actually know what they are talking about), difficult to bring a high standard as its about past and gone events which anyone with half a brain can actually investigate but which creationists seem inca[able of dealing with. Speculation/hypothesis becomes TRUTH way too quick in origin subjects everywhere creationists bring their crackpot ideas.

Sterility indeed.

To add to Mike’s list of pseudoscience with strong political backing…

American’s “know” that pot is a drug and alcohol isn’t because the government illegalized pot and then invested in an ad campaign to smear it. The government invented “science” to go with that smear campaign. “Gateway drug” was invented as a smear against marijuana and kept even though real scientists immediately debunked the idea.

Jeffrey Shallit said:

Carl Drews said: Thanks for those observations. I will summarize the Indicators of Pseudo-science that Jeffrey Shallit originally proposed: Valid indicators:

• lead to no new insights
• suggest no experiments

NOT valid indicators:

• espoused by single crackpots
• small community of like-minded ideologues

Debatable indicators:

• few or no citations in the scientific literature [within a few years]
• predominantly self-citations

I don't think the single crackpot / small community is a very good indicator, anyway; the ID community is uncomfortably large. And I appreciate the new indicators about testability and explanatory power.

Carl Drews, and some others on this thread, are making a silly mistake. It is unrealistic to believe there will be necessary and sufficient conditions that serve to separate science from pseudoscience, and it is foolish to discard a criterion because it is not perfect. Think of trying to detect scam e-mails: things like, is it from Nigeria? Are there misspellings? Does the signature match the name in the header? are all useful criteria to detect scammers.

TomS said:

Mike Elzinga said: I have been trying to think back on how various forms of pseudoscience in the past were promulgated.

The problem with ID is that it makes no claims about anything. It provides no account for "why this rather than something else". It does not attempt to tell us "what happened and when". All it says is that there is something wrong with evolutionary biology. I wouldn't call it "pseudoscience". It isn't like alchemy or astrology. It is more similar to an advertising campaign. Especially like a negative political advertisement, where it's all about how the other guy is bad, not about your guy.

I agree to a large degree with what you have to say. I think that any disagreement is over a matter of terminology. I think that "pseudoscience" calls to mind classical examples like alchemy and astrology. Creationism/ID is, I agree, a "social/political movement driven by an ideology", but I don't think that that describes alchemy or astrology. When I suggest that creationism is not astrology, what I want to emphasize is that creationism is unlike alchemy and astrology and more like a social/political movement. I would liken it more to bimetallism than to parapsychology. Its advocates are not interested in accounting for phenomena, or describing features of the world, or in investigating things. My distinction between social/political movements with a veneer of sciencey-sounding language and pseudo-science may not be worth the effort, but that's all that I was after.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with Mike. Science is a word loaded with magic - invoke it and you have the admiration, respect, and amazement of the general public, few of whom know what science is any better than the ID creationists. People may have only the vaguest understanding of HOW science produces all the wonderful substance of our lifestyle (and that understanding is often way wrong), but there's no question science DOES produce this stuff consistently. Indeed, scientific advances are frequent (and real) enough that we must regulate how the word "new" can be used in advertising copy!

So if the cachet of "science" can be veneered over tired creationist claptrap, this might give it the sort of blind public acceptance science gets. Hence the potemkin village of "research" and "conferences" and "peer review" and mailorder PhD degrees and sectarian doctrine reprhased into sciency-sounding terms created to look new and advanced without any underlying substance of meaning or evidence.

Still, I think TomS has a good point. Alchemy and astrology are not pasted over political agendas. No astrologer would suggest passing laws requiring the teaching of astrology or demanding the "academic freedom" to preach astrology, or requiring that astronomy be singled out for "critical thinking" because it's "only a theory."

If something other than science had the clout with the general public that science does, creationists would be faking that instead.

I assume you're distinguishing between astrology/alchemy back then and the same things now. Newton and friends actually thought they were on to something. Now we know it doesn't work, so yeah, hanging on to it now is pseudo-science, if by pseudo-science you mean ignorance (willful or no), category error, and so on.

We also know now that creation science is bullshit, but this pseudo-science is deliberate, calculated obfuscation and coat-tail riding.

Mike Elzinga said:

Just Bob said: How about racist-motivated eugenics in the US? Or the appropriation of "survival of the fittest" by laissez faire capitalism?

Or the magical ability of women’s bodies – in the case of “legitimate rape” – “to shut that whole thing down.” What is that now; six out of eight? Man; it’s beginning to look like most of this politically motivated pseudoscience originates in the United States.

fnxtr said: I assume you're distinguishing between astrology/alchemy back then and the same things now. Newton and friends actually thought they were on to something. Now we know it doesn't work, so yeah, hanging on to it now is pseudo-science, if by pseudo-science you mean ignorance (willful or no), category error, and so on. We also know now that creation science is bullshit, but this pseudo-science is deliberate, calculated obfuscation and coat-tail riding.

I would not place astrology or alchemy – as it was back in the Middle Ages – in the category of a pseudoscience; although I think I would if someone pushed those notions seriously today.

There is another characteristic of ideologically driven pseudoscience that is a part of Lysenkoism, Deutche Physik, and ID/creationism; and that is the insistence by its ideologues on forcing, without question, the universal use of the language of their pseudoscience.

This was something that I believe Morris and Gish actually thought about when setting up their marks for debates. Whenever an ID/creationist uses terms, he expects the responses from his opponents to be using those same terms in exactly the same way the ID/creationist means them.

This goes on even today when people go over to the UD site and attempt to argue with the denizens of UD. The UD people throw around terms and acronyms as though these are real terms from some area of science; but they are, instead, terms they themselves have invented or twisted. The terms are simply rammed out there brazenly as though anybody should know them; and if others don’t know the term, or if they question the term, they are mocked as lacking scientific knowledge.

So the more one looks at pseudo-sciences such as ID/creationism, the more one discovers that considerable thought, both strategic and tactical, has gone into its promulgation. And the pushers of this pseudoscience are trained in debating tactics as well.

Yep. Astrology and alchemy were proto-scientific theories that turned out to be wrong and only became pseudosciences when some people clung to them long after they had been replaced by more scientific models.

Going through Wikipedia's list of pseudosciences, the ones that I would pick as having significant political/cultural clout would be:

- AGW climate change denial
- Lysenkoism
- Attachment therapy (not the same as attachment theory)
- NLP
- Conversion therapy
- Polygraph lie detecting
- Psychoanalysis
- Alternative medicine (incl. homeopathy, chiropractic, iridology)
- Holocaust denial
- Creation science
- Dianetics
- Scientific racism
- Perpetual motion
- not on the list, but I'd add eugenics

A funny thing about alchemy (the goal of which was to make gold from cheaper stuff) is that a physicist with modern equipment can turn other atoms into gold - but doing it that way costs more than the gold is worth. LOL.

Most modern pseudosciences actively seek to part money from fools. Surely that should be a criterion.

Oh, and where I live you could make a strong case for the pseudoscience of Maharishi Vedic Science.

Robert Byers said: its off thread. However I don't believe there is any species called science. its just people thinking about stuff.

Joe Felsenstein said: What does amaze me even more is that there are people here at PT who think that if they ask Byers a tough question that he will actually respond in some halfways cogent way. And that there will be some halfways illuminating debate. And that this will not derail the thread.

jjm said:

Joe Felsenstein said: What does amaze me even more is that there are people here at PT who think that if they ask Byers a tough question that he will actually respond in some halfways cogent way. And that there will be some halfways illuminating debate. And that this will not derail the thread.

I don't think anyone expects a cogent response, but by asking the questions his ignorance and the ridiculous nature of his ideas are clearly exposed again and again. Plus it also serves to illustrate exactly why these pseudo-sciences are so infertile. It's also entertaining!

apokryltaros said: In other words, when people ask Robert Byers a tough question, they aren't doing so with the expectation of a cogent response, they're handing him rope to hang himself with.

apokryltaros said: In other words, when people ask Robert Byers a tough question, they aren't doing so with the expectation of a cogent response, they're handing him rope to hang himself with.

Mike Elzinga said: When I say pseudo-science today, I really do mean a purposeful imitation of a well-established, successful process of investigation, evidence, and theories of the universe that have withstood the tests of time and rigorous skeptical competition. ID/creationism is a pseudo-science because it consciously tries to portray itself as doing just what science does, but in addition it has an entire set of “theories” of its own; they have their own creationist thermodynamics, their own creationist taxonomy, and their own creationist “microevolution within kinds.” What ever science has, they have an imitation of it.

TomS said: how can we establish whether or not Homo sapiens is related to Homo erectus on creationist/design principles?

There is a crucial step before your #1. One decides what one wants to believe. Am I comfortable with being related to H. erectus, or is it just a monkey? That determines what I find in the Bible. After all, the Bible doesn't have anything to say about H. erectus, no more than it has anything to say about fixity of kinds.

It is clear that Intelligent Design is defunct. However, one should not throw out one of its objections to evolution, that of complexity, out with the bathwater. It is becoming clear from the ENCODE studies, no matter what one might think of their claims, that the genome is vastly more complex than ever imagined. There are so many thousands of interconnecting loops of control and suppression, of promoters and repressors, that it is becoming more and more difficult to imagine how all of these complex control mechanisms evolved at the same time that protein-coding genes evolved. And one can't even define a gene anymore, at least not in the usual manner. Proteins are created from segments from various areas of the genome, some very far apart which come together via the three dimensional folding of the chromosome, and from both strands of DNA, that one can no longer define a gene in terms of the geographical location of a set of bases. So what is one to do with all this complexity? Is it reasonable to use the model of evolution, even in its modern form that includes more refined mechanisms than simple single spontaneous mutations and natural selection, to explain how all of these mechanisms evolved in tandem to actually allow the new protein-coding "gene" to express itself? A new, more expansive, perhaps revolutionary, model is needed. One shouldn't keep trying to fit in all of these new discoveries into an evolutionary model that was created to explain our 19th century idea of evolution that is clearly becoming inadequate.

eric said:

TomS said: how can we establish whether or not Homo sapiens is related to Homo erectus on creationist/design principles?

The creationism/ID methodology is pretty clear: 1. Look up what it says in the bible about the origins of humans. 2. Instead of treating this as an hypothesis to be tested, just believe it. 3. Develop a post-hoc empiricism-like justification for this belief. 4. (Optional) Lie and claim you never did #s 1 and 2. Step 1 is actually fine; in science, hypotheses can come from anywhere, including religious books. Step 2 is what makes creationism unscientific. Steps 3 and 4 are what make it pseudoscience, in that the people who do those steps are actively attempting to co-opt the trappings of science or commit a form of methodological fraud.

TomS said: First of all, I want to make it clear that I don't have any real disagreement with you. But I wouldn't put things as you did in these two paragraphs. In particular, I wouldn't say that ID/creationism has any intention of developing "theories". That would be a sign of some work in progress. Rather than an "imitation" of science, they just appropriate a few expressions from the sciences. ...

Among all of those references, does any of them tell us what sort of thing is created/designed and what sort of thing is not? Even give an example of a hypothetical non-designed/non-created thing? Does any of them tell us what the precursors of designed things were? How about a description of the process?

I know that the YECs tell us when this process took place, but the "new, improved model" of "intelligent design" makes a point of not having any interest in when it happened - or anything about who, what agents did it.

I admit that I know nothing about Deutsche Physik, other than "Einstein was wrong", so it might be in the same category as ID. But most of the pseudosciences that I know a bit about do make some gestures in the direction of telling us what happens and when, and they often have some sort of language about a mechanism.

To take one example from ID, "complex specified information". Do they ever tell us even the most basic things about it, such as: is it an extensive or and intensive property, what are the units, ...?

That's why I find a major difference between creationism/design and alchemy and astrology, which I take as paradigms of pseudoscience.

Bill Maz said: It is clear that Intelligent Design is defunct. However, one should not throw out one of its objections to evolution, that of complexity, out with the bathwater.

It is becoming clear from the ENCODE studies, no matter what one might think of their claims, that the genome is vastly more complex than ever imagined. There are so many thousands of interconnecting loops of control and suppression, of promoters and repressors, that it is becoming more and more difficult to imagine how all of these complex control mechanisms evolved at the same time that protein-coding genes evolved.

And one can't even define a gene anymore, at least not in the usual manner. Proteins are created from segments from various areas of the genome, some very far apart which come together via the three dimensional folding of the chromosome, and from both strands of DNA, that one can no longer define a gene in terms of the geographical location of a set of bases.

So what is one to do with all this complexity? Is it reasonable to use the model of evolution, even in its modern form that includes more refined mechanisms than simple single spontaneous mutations and natural selection, to explain how all of these mechanisms evolved in tandem to actually allow the new protein-coding "gene" to express itself?

A new, more expansive, perhaps revolutionary, model is needed. One shouldn't keep trying to fit in all of these new discoveries into an evolutionary model that was created to explain our 19th century idea of evolution that is clearly becoming inadequate.

Bill Maz said: There are so many thousands of interconnecting loops of control and suppression, of promoters and repressors, that it is becoming more and more difficult to imagine how all of these complex control mechanisms evolved at the same time that protein-coding genes evolved.

And one can't even define a gene anymore, at least not in the usual manner. Proteins are created from segments from various areas of the genome, some very far apart which come together via the three dimensional folding of the chromosome, and from both strands of DNA, that one can no longer define a gene in terms of the geographical location of a set of bases.

A new, more expansive, perhaps revolutionary, model is needed.

Bill Maz said: It is clear that Intelligent Design is defunct. However, one should not throw out one of its objections to evolution, that of complexity, out with the bathwater.

It is becoming clear from the ENCODE studies, no matter what one might think of their claims, that the genome is vastly more complex than ever imagined.

There are so many thousands of interconnecting loops of control and suppression, of promoters and repressors, that it is becoming more and more difficult to imagine how all of these complex control mechanisms evolved at the same time that protein-coding genes evolved.

And one can't even define a gene anymore, at least not in the usual manner.

Proteins are created from segments from various areas of the genome, some very far apart which come together via the three dimensional folding of the chromosome, and from both strands of DNA, that one can no longer define a gene in terms of the geographical location of a set of bases.

So what is one to do with all this complexity?

Is it reasonable to use the model of evolution, even in its modern form that includes more refined mechanisms than simple single spontaneous mutations and natural selection, to explain how all of these mechanisms evolved in tandem to actually allow the new protein-coding "gene" to express itself?

A new, more expansive, perhaps revolutionary, model is needed.

One shouldn't keep trying to fit in all of these new discoveries into an evolutionary model that was created to explain our 19th century idea of evolution that is clearly becoming inadequate.

TomS said: Among all of those references, does any of them tell us what sort of thing is created/designed and what sort of thing is not? Even give an example of a hypothetical non-designed/non-created thing? Does any of them tell us what the precursors of designed things were? How about a description of the process? I know that the YECs tell us when this process took place, but the "new, improved model" of "intelligent design" makes a point of not having any interest in when it happened - or anything about who, what agents did it.

To the ID/creationist, the second law of thermodynamics is about decay and everything falling into disorder.

...what I want to emphasize is that creationism is unlike alchemy and astrology and more like a social/political movement.

— TomS

It is clear that Intelligent Design is defunct.

However, one should not throw out one of its objections to evolution, that of complexity, out with the bathwater.

It is becoming clear from the ENCODE studies, no matter what one might think of their claims, that the genome is vastly more complex than ever imagined. There are so many thousands of interconnecting loops of control and suppression, of promoters and repressors, that it is becoming more and more difficult to imagine how all of these complex control mechanisms evolved at the same time that protein-coding genes evolved.

And one can’t even define a gene anymore, at least not in the usual manner.

Proteins are created from segments from various areas of the genome, some very far apart which come together via the three dimensional folding of the chromosome, and from both strands of DNA, that one can no longer define a gene in terms of the geographical location of a set of bases.

So what is one to do with all this complexity?

Is it reasonable to use the model of evolution, even in its modern form that includes more refined mechanisms than simple single spontaneous mutations and natural selection, to explain how all of these mechanisms evolved in tandem to actually allow the new protein-coding “gene” to express itself?

A new, more expansive, perhaps revolutionary, model is needed.

One shouldn’t keep trying to fit in all of these new discoveries into an evolutionary model that was created to explain our 19th century idea of evolution that is clearly becoming inadequate.

On the 64 codons R 64 hexagrams in the I Ching, there are also...

64 squares on a chess board
64 sexual positions in the Kama Sutra
64 demons in the Dictionnaire Infernal
64 discs in the original Tower of Hanoi

They must all be related! The genetic code was created by game-playing sex-demon soothsayers!

WRT complexity, I found "Complexity" - "The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos" by M. Mitchell Waldrop most interesting and have read it a couple of times. Today I find the print a little small for my eyes, or I might read it again.

Rolf said: WRT complexity, I found "Complexity" - "The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos" by M. Mitchell Waldrop most interesting and have read it a couple of times. Today I find the print a little small for my eyes, or I might read it again.

Mike Elzinga said: ID/creationist misconceptions about science begin primarily with the second law of thermodynamics. To the ID/creationist, the second law of thermodynamics is about decay and everything falling into disorder. They look around and see rust, decay, death, and things “naturally tending toward disorder.” To the ID/creationist, this is the essence of the second law of thermodynamics.

I began my piece stating that ID is defunct. By that I meant that it has no scientific basis. I certainly don’t support Creationism. So the straw man arguments created by some of the breathless comments above are hyperventilation. I meant to put an end to ID from the start so we could start a discussion about new models of evolution that are beginning to spring up in the literature.

For example, Paul Davies recently published a paper (1) that looks at evolution from an information technology point of view rather than from the physical and chemical characteristics of molecules. His model tries to define the origin of life as “the transition from bottom-up to top down causation and information flow.” He concludes that “the onset of Darwinian evolution in a chemical system was likely not the critical step in the emergence of life.” He is not denying evolution, but rather he is suggesting that information organization and flow may be the driving force behind evolution rather than the purely physical model currently used.

Another interesting set of studies have shown that DNA, the cytoplasm, and protein structure all have fractal properties (2,3,4,5,6 and many others). Evolution has also been shown to have chaotic fractal properties (short review: Bennett, K. My New Scientists, Oct. 18, 2010). As we know, one aspect of chaos theory is that of strange attractors, points toward which systems repeatedly progress in similar but not identical patters. If evolution is chaotic, it can be argued that it is progressing toward such attractors, therefore being directional, not simply “random.” This would open up an entire new line of thought.

The point I am making is that yes, evolution is the basic mechanism of adaptive change, but what kind of evolution? Is it based purely on the chemistry of molecules, on mutations and natural selection, or is it information based, or is it chaotic with some kind of “strange attractor” direction? Or is it quantum based? (7)

(1) Walker, Sara, Davies, Paul. The Algorithmic Origins of Life arXiv:1207.4803v2 [nlin.AO] 22 Oct 2012
(2) Moreno et al. The Human Genome: a Multifractal Analysis, BMC Genomics 2011, 12:506
(3) Mabrouk, M et al. Preliminary Investigation on Nonlinear Dynamical Modeling of the Biological Sequences PROC. CAIRO INTERNATIONAL BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING CONFERENCE 2006
(4) Aon MA, Cortassa S. (1994) On the fractal nature of cytoplasm. FEBS Lett. May 9; 344, 1-4
(5) Ohno, S. 1988, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 85: 4378-4386
(6) Lieberman, et al. Comprehensive mapping of long range interactions reveals folding principles of the human genome, Science. 2009 October 9; 326(5950): 289-293
(7) Caramel, S., Stagnaro, S., Quantum Biophysical Semeiotics and mit-Genome’s Fractal Dimension, Journal of Quantum Biophysical Semeiotics 2011, 1-27.

Bill Maz said: The point I am making is that yes, evolution is the basic mechanism of adaptive change, but what kind of evolution? Is it based purely on the chemistry of molecules,

on mutations and natural selection,

or is it information based,

or is it chaotic with some kind of “strange attractor” direction? Or is it quantum based?

Employment: Seeking for an Awesome Job, Independent Biotechnologist Bragging rights: I wrote and article related with the most modern representation of the genetic code: A functional tetrahedron, for the journal of Bio-Complexity. Education: Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara, Specialty in Animal Science, 1984 - 1989; Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara, Agricultural Engineering, 1984 - 1992; Universidad de Guadalajara, M.S. Biotechnology, 1994 - 1999; Universidad de Guadalajara, Ph.D. Molecular Biology, 1999 - 2006; Baylor College of Medicine, Predoctoral Antiobesity, 2000 - 2003; Baylor College of Medicine, Postdoctoral Antiatherosclerosis, 2008 - 2011

For example, Paul Davies recently published a paper (1) that looks at evolution from an information technology point of view rather than from the physical and chemical characteristics of molecules.

His model tries to define the origin of life as “the transition from bottom-up to top down causation and information flow.” He concludes that “the onset of Darwinian evolution in a chemical system was likely not the critical step in the emergence of life.”

He is not denying evolution, but rather he is suggesting that information organization and flow may be the driving force behind evolution rather than the purely physical model currently used.

Another interesting set of studies have shown that DNA, the cytoplasm, and protein structure all have fractal properties (2,3,4,5,6 and many others). Evolution has also been shown to have chaotic fractal properties (short review: Bennett, K. My New Scientists, Oct. 18, 2010). As we know, one aspect of chaos theory is that of strange attractors, points toward which systems repeatedly progress in similar but not identical patters. If evolution is chaotic, it can be argued that it is progressing toward such attractors, therefore being directional, not simply “random.” This would open up an entire new line of thought.

The point I am making is that yes, evolution is the basic mechanism of adaptive change, but what kind of evolution? Is it based purely on the chemistry of molecules, on mutations and natural selection, or is it information based, or is it chaotic with some kind of “strange attractor” direction? Or is it quantum based? (7)

"Strange attractors"?

Is that like when aquatic mammals (or birds) wind up with body shapes very similar to that of fish?

Or when mollusks and chordates wind up with eyes that look similar?

Or when several branches of egg layers develop ways of live birth?

When there's an anatomical pattern that works, there can be different lineages that converge on it from different starting points.

Or in other words (IMNSHO), convergent evolution, just phrased differently.

Henry

This is starting to look familiar... how long before the VB diagram comes out, do you think?

fnxtr said: This is starting to look familiar... how long before the VB diagram comes out, do you think?

Bill Maz said: It is clear that Intelligent Design is defunct. However, one should not throw out one of its objections to evolution, that of complexity, out with the bathwater. It is becoming clear from the ENCODE studies, no matter what one might think of their claims, that the genome is vastly more complex than ever imagined. There are so many thousands of interconnecting loops of control and suppression, of promoters and repressors, that it is becoming more and more difficult to imagine how all of these complex control mechanisms evolved at the same time that protein-coding genes evolved. And one can't even define a gene anymore, at least not in the usual manner. Proteins are created from segments from various areas of the genome, some very far apart which come together via the three dimensional folding of the chromosome, and from both strands of DNA, that one can no longer define a gene in terms of the geographical location of a set of bases. So what is one to do with all this complexity? Is it reasonable to use the model of evolution, even in its modern form that includes more refined mechanisms than simple single spontaneous mutations and natural selection, to explain how all of these mechanisms evolved in tandem to actually allow the new protein-coding "gene" to express itself? A new, more expansive, perhaps revolutionary, model is needed. One shouldn't keep trying to fit in all of these new discoveries into an evolutionary model that was created to explain our 19th century idea of evolution that is clearly becoming inadequate.

OK Harold. Your first question above: Yes, of course, “Demski, Behe, Wells and other ID fellows are logically and empirically false.” I already said so. Second, in terms of how to define complexity, what we are discussing is complexity in a non-linear system, which the cell is. The cellular automaton, first discovered in the 1940s by von Neumann and Ulam and more recently refined by Stephen Wolfram, is being used by Mitchell and others, along with genetic algorithms, to study computations in decentralized and self-evolving systems, which the cell is (I can give you citations if you want). There are other models, but all of them must explain a non-linear system whose outcome is unpredictable from the starting conditions. That is what chaos theory is. You start with a few “rules” in the DNA which then are reproduced over and over again, each time a little differently, to create many similar but not identical objects with different functions. For example, to create the structure of the vascular system, the neurological system, the various similar but not identical proteins that have different functions, etc.

Your next remark about designing entities doesn’t deserve an answer. Next, my remark about our changing views of what a gene is, again, is not an argument against evolution, but it is simply intended to bolster the observation that all the systems in a cell are more complex than we thought. It is an argument for a better model of evolution. In terms of the evidence for proteins being transcribed by “genes” in different loci, all you have to do is read the recent ENCODE papers. And I said “some” not “most” as you put it. With regard to other models of evolution, I have given you a couple in my second posting.

In terms of information theory, I listed the citation so that if one were interested, one could read the paper. This is no place to delve into information theory. And information is not in the eye of the observer (unless you think in quantum terms that nothing exists unless there is an observer). Information in a cell is decentralized. It is in all the molecules that are buzzing inside and which impart information to each other through their biochemical interactions. There is also information, obviously, in the DNA. But a cell is a chaotic system which exists in a state between total predictability (in which information is stored only centrally in DNA and there is no biofeedback) and total randomness. By being in this balanced state, the cell is able to respond to external stimuli through biofeedback information to the DNA to turn on genes, shut others off, etc. Information flows bidirectionally.

Your remark that the theory of evolution doesn’t deal with the origin of life also shows a superficial understanding. Evolution is not just about organisms and biodiversity. Evolution also works on the molecular level. Some biochemicals in the primordial “soup” had to have been more adaptive, or robust, or whatever, than others in order for them to have survived and evolved into more complex molecules until they reached the level of “life.” Evolution works everywhere. The paper I cited on information theory looks at what kind of information flow is necessary to have evolved in order that a living organism would have resulted. It arrives at the conclusion that the present model of RNA being the first molecule is inadequate and that a bimolecular system have to have existed, RNA plus a mixture of other molecules in the immediate vicinity which would have allowed for information flow to and from the RNA which would have benefitted both. This is all before there was even a cellular wall. And it is all evolution!

In terms of bacterial resistance, information flows as it does in all cells in both directions, from the molecules in the cell wall to the DNA and back to the cytoplasm. Of course resistance is physical. Everything is physical, including the information that all molecules contain in their structure and function.

You also have a false understanding of mathematics. It is accepted in physics and mathematics that the rules of math are not just descriptive. One and one is two, no matter whether you are there to describe it or not. Quantum physics proposes that the universe could have arisen out of nothing. But only if the rules of quantum physics existed already. In other words, we may have only an inexact understanding of those rules, but the true rules, the ideal rules in Platonic terms, exist and existed before the universe began, otherwise there would have been no rules for the universe to follow to appear out of nothing. In fact, the thinking is now that a mathematical matrix is the one eternal truth, the skeleton, upon which the universe is built. And whether or not we understand fractals as the organizing element in DNA, cellular, and organism structure is irrelevant as to whether those structures exist, which has been repeatedly shown they do (a vast number of citations available through a simple google search).

In terms of bigdakine’s comment that complexity is simply a result of haphazard, trial and error changes in the genome, that is only part of the answer. Chaos theory has as one of its primary elements the idea of “strange” attractors. What this means is that as a system evolves, whether it is a biological system or the US coastline or traffic patterns or the stock market or even the beating of the heart or the electrical impulses in the brain, all of which are chaotic systems, there is an underlying pattern which is self-replicating at different magnifications and which has mathematical points of reference toward which they drift over time. In other words, it is not random. If the genome is chaotic, which it seems to be, then its evolution might have mathematical direction toward such an attractor. This is not supernatural or Creationism, just math.

I hope I have not been “babbling nonsense” and have answered your questions at least on a first approximation.

TomS said:

Mike Elzinga said: ID/creationist misconceptions about science begin primarily with the second law of thermodynamics. To the ID/creationist, the second law of thermodynamics is about decay and everything falling into disorder. They look around and see rust, decay, death, and things “naturally tending toward disorder.” To the ID/creationist, this is the essence of the second law of thermodynamics.

I don't understand how you mean that their misconceptions about science begin with the second law of thermodynamics (2lot). For example, we are told that the order of the fossil record arose by hydraulic sorting. If the 2lot prevented order arising from disorder, then hydraulic sorting would not work. That's not just a misunderstanding of the 2lot, that is just self-contradiction. They just don't like evolution, and they will grab anything that seems to work for the moment, without consideration about what its consequences are later. It seems to me that the beginning of the misconceptions about science are to be found in the revulsion at the idea of being physically related to monkeys and in a particular method of using the Bible as a comfort tool. Yes, I know that they like to use scientifical-sounding language.

Bill Maz said: This is no place to delve into information theory. And information is not in the eye of the observer (unless you think in quantum terms that nothing exists unless there is an observer). Information in a cell is decentralized. It is in all the molecules that are buzzing inside and which impart information to each other through their biochemical interactions. There is also information, obviously, in the DNA. But a cell is a chaotic system which exists in a state between total predictability (in which information is stored only centrally in DNA and there is no biofeedback) and total randomness. By being in this balanced state, the cell is able to respond to external stimuli through biofeedback information to the DNA to turn on genes, shut others off, etc. Information flows bidirectionally.

Now you're just showing your ignorance, Mike. Chaos theory has nothing to do with chaos or with ID creationist mumbo-jumbo. Why don't you just do a simple google search before you put your name on such a remark.

Bill Maz said: OK Harold. Your first question above: Yes, of course, “Demski, Behe, Wells and other ID fellows are logically and empirically false.” I already said so. Second, in terms of how to define complexity, what we are discussing is complexity in a non-linear system, which the cell is. The cellular automaton, first discovered in the 1940s by von Neumann and Ulam and more recently refined by Stephen Wolfram, is being used by Mitchell and others, along with genetic algorithms, to study computations in decentralized and self-evolving systems, which the cell is (I can give you citations if you want). There are other models, but all of them must explain a non-linear system whose outcome is unpredictable from the starting conditions. That is what chaos theory is. You start with a few “rules” in the DNA which then are reproduced over and over again, each time a little differently, to create many similar but not identical objects with different functions. For example, to create the structure of the vascular system, the neurological system, the various similar but not identical proteins that have different functions, etc. Your next remark about designing entities doesn’t deserve an answer. Next, my remark about our changing views of what a gene is, again, is not an argument against evolution, but it is simply intended to bolster the observation that all the systems in a cell are more complex than we thought. It is an argument for a better model of evolution. In terms of the evidence for proteins being transcribed by “genes” in different loci, all you have to do is read the recent ENCODE papers. And I said “some” not “most” as you put it. With regard to other models of evolution, I have given you a couple in my second posting. In terms of information theory, I listed the citation so that if one were interested, one could read the paper. This is no place to delve into information theory. And information is not in the eye of the observer (unless you think in quantum terms that nothing exists unless there is an observer). Information in a cell is decentralized. It is in all the molecules that are buzzing inside and which impart information to each other through their biochemical interactions. There is also information, obviously, in the DNA. But a cell is a chaotic system which exists in a state between total predictability (in which information is stored only centrally in DNA and there is no biofeedback) and total randomness. By being in this balanced state, the cell is able to respond to external stimuli through biofeedback information to the DNA to turn on genes, shut others off, etc. Information flows bidirectionally. Your remark that the theory of evolution doesn’t deal with the origin of life also shows a superficial understanding. Evolution is not just about organisms and biodiversity. Evolution also works on the molecular level. Some biochemicals in the primordial “soup” had to have been more adaptive, or robust, or whatever, than others in order for them to have survived and evolved into more complex molecules until they reached the level of “life.” Evolution works everywhere. The paper I cited on information theory looks at what kind of information flow is necessary to have evolved in order that a living organism would have resulted. It arrives at the conclusion that the present model of RNA being the first molecule is inadequate and that a bimolecular system have to have existed, RNA plus a mixture of other molecules in the immediate vicinity which would have allowed for information flow to and from the RNA which would have benefitted both. This is all before there was even a cellular wall. And it is all evolution! In terms of bacterial resistance, information flows as it does in all cells in both directions, from the molecules in the cell wall to the DNA and back to the cytoplasm. Of course resistance is physical. Everything is physical, including the information that all molecules contain in their structure and function. You also have a false understanding of mathematics. It is accepted in physics and mathematics that the rules of math are not just descriptive. One and one is two, no matter whether you are there to describe it or not. Quantum physics proposes that the universe could have arisen out of nothing. But only if the rules of quantum physics existed already. In other words, we may have only an inexact understanding of those rules, but the true rules, the ideal rules in Platonic terms, exist and existed before the universe began, otherwise there would have been no rules for the universe to follow to appear out of nothing. In fact, the thinking is now that a mathematical matrix is the one eternal truth, the skeleton, upon which the universe is built. And whether or not we understand fractals as the organizing element in DNA, cellular, and organism structure is irrelevant as to whether those structures exist, which has been repeatedly shown they do (a vast number of citations available through a simple google search). In terms of bigdakine’s comment that complexity is simply a result of haphazard, trial and error changes in the genome, that is only part of the answer. Chaos theory has as one of its primary elements the idea of “strange” attractors. What this means is that as a system evolves, whether it is a biological system or the US coastline or traffic patterns or the stock market or even the beating of the heart or the electrical impulses in the brain, all of which are chaotic systems, there is an underlying pattern which is self-replicating at different magnifications and which has mathematical points of reference toward which they drift over time. In other words, it is not random. If the genome is chaotic, which it seems to be, then its evolution might have mathematical direction toward such an attractor. This is not supernatural or Creationism, just math. I hope I have not been “babbling nonsense” and have answered your questions at least on a first approximation.

Bill Maz said: Now you're just showing your ignorance, Mike. Chaos theory has nothing to do with chaos or with ID creationist mumbo-jumbo. Why don't you just do a simple google search before you put your name on such a remark.

I really don't get this nonsense about "information" being some independent entity. Information is what we select/collect from systems and processes, not some invisible magic cloud.

Bill may be tangentially approaching your ideas on "emergent properties", Mike, but from such a peculiar angle that no-one really knows what he's talking about.

Sorry I meant asymptotally, if there is such a word.

fnxtr said: Bill may be tangentially approaching your ideas on "emergent properties", Mike, but from such a peculiar angle that no-one really knows what he's talking about.

I haven't given enough thought about your point about the centrality of the second law of thermodynamics (or, rather, a misunderstanding of it) to the development of creationism/design. So I won't presume to make any argument against it. But I will say that it seems to me that revulsion at the idea of being related to monkeys seemed to have been there from the beginning of anti-evolutionism; that, and the lack of a thought-out alternative (short of omphalism).

I will have to do some work, for example, reading through the history of the subject, keeping an eye out for thermodynamics.

And I want to thank you for challenging me and giving me something new to think about.

Bill Maz,

I may be misreading where you're coming from, but it looks to me that while you're opposed to ID/creationism, you've still been exposed to a non-ID/creationist load of mumbo-jumbo and do not have the skills to see through it. The first thing you are going to have to do is understand that Paul Davies is not a reliable source on matters of evolution. He is one of a number of people from outside biology who think they can apply rules from their own field (in Davies' case physics) to evolution...there is nothing wrong with trying and cross-fertilisation of fields can yield very useful results, but Davies and others like him do not possess the self-critical skills to understand when they have gone off the rails and are applying techniques that are invalid. Seriously, Davies' claims about information and evolution are little different to ID/creationists' misuse of the 2LoT.

The second thing you are going to have to do is read some real science. Not necessarily original papers (although if you *really* want to understand the science, you have to read the primary research), but at least read some good popularisations of evolution by writers like Carl Zimmer or Stephen Jay Gould or Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne or Matt Ridley.

The third thing you are going to have to do is cure yourself of your affection for scientists/mathematicians who pose overly simplistic models of evolution while patting themselves on the back for solving all the problems that those silly evolutionary biologists can't figure out. Paul Davies and Stephen Wolfram belong to that group (Wolfram holds the belief that every field of science will be explained by a single algorithm of about 3-4 lines of computer code, which may well be the biggest over-simplification of all time). Your misuse of chaos theory also falls into that trap, probably from reading too many breathless popularisations about how chaos theory is the basis of everything. Chaos theory is a very important theory that helps explain non-linear behaviour, but it does not and cannot and was not created to explain the underlying physical processes behind gravity, predator-prey cycles, or weather. You can use chaos theory to describe certain patterns in evolution, but you cannot use chaos theory to explain the fundamental mechanisms.

TomS said: I haven't given enough thought about your point about the centrality of the second law of thermodynamics (or, rather, a misunderstanding of it) to the development of creationism/design. So I won't presume to make any argument against it. But I will say that it seems to me that revulsion at the idea of being related to monkeys seemed to have been there from the beginning of anti-evolutionism; that, and the lack of a thought-out alternative (short of omphalism). I will have to do some work, for example, reading through the history of the subject, keeping an eye out for thermodynamics. And I want to thank you for challenging me and giving me something new to think about.

Mike,you really believe that fractals and chaotic behavior have nothing to do with organic chemistry and DNA? I listed citations in my posting above. I will repeat them here.

(1) Walker, Sara, Davies, Paul. The Algorithmic Origins of Life arXiv:1207.4803v2 [nlin.AO] 22 Oct 2012
(2) Moreno et al. The Human Genome: a Multifractal Analysis, BMC Genomics 2011, 12:506
(3) Mabrouk, M et al. Preliminary Investigation on Nonlinear Dynamical Modeling of the Biological Sequences PROC. CAIRO INTERNATIONAL BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING CONFERENCE 2006
(4) Aon MA, Cortassa S. (1994) On the fractal nature of cytoplasm. FEBS Lett. May 9; 344, 1-4
(5) Ohno, S. 1988, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 85: 4378-4386
(6) Lieberman, et al. Comprehensive mapping of long range interactions reveals folding principles of the human genome, Science. 2009 October 9; 326(5950): 289-293
(7) Caramel, S., Stagnaro, S., Quantum Biophysical Semeiotics and mit-Genome’s Fractal Dimension, Journal of Quantum Biophysical Semeiotics 2011, 1-27.

I will add some more citations.

(8) Rosenfeld, S. Characteristics of Transcriptional Activity in Nonlinear Dynamics of Genetic Regulatory Networks, Gene Regul sys. Bio. 2009; 3: 159-179
(9) Kurakin, A. The Self-organizing Fractal Theory as a Universal Discovery Method: the Phenomenon of Life Theor Biol Med Model. 2011; 8: 4

And Chris, thanks for your advice. Which part of my understanding of evolution do you find inadequate? Is it when I corrected harold who said evolution doesn't work on a molecular basis? Really? And as to chaos theory, yes, Chris, it actually was originally derived by Lorenz to explain weather. Read a little. Chaos theory also applies to our vascular and our neurologic system, to the electrical impulses in the brain, to the rhythm of heartbeats, to DNA structure, cytoplasmic biochemical activity, proteins structure, and yes, traffic patterns, population growth, the coastlines of continents, etc. It applies to a lot. No, it doesn't apply to gravity. And as to who is breathless here, I've tried to present citations and evidence for everything I've stated. All I get back is "breathless" ad hominum attacks. You guys claim you are real scientists. Really? My colleagues would not discuss ideas in this way. But maybe that is the blog world. No wonder I didn't participate until now.

Is it when I corrected harold who said evolution doesn’t work on a molecular basis?

Bill Maz -

Instead of demanding that others produce a better theory of evolution, why don't you provide one and explain how it can be tested?

TomS said: ...it seems to me that revulsion at the idea of being related to monkeys seemed to have been there from the beginning of anti-evolutionism...

harold, I have provided literature in which others have proposed expanded versions of evolution along with experimental evidence and further proposed research. I am not making this stuff up. All I am asking is that people look at these studies in a fair and open-minded way. Also, in response to Mike's objections that some of these scientists are physicists and mathematicians, sometimes new ideas come from related fields. In fact, great ideas come from combining two or more different science fields. This is nothing new.

Bill Maz said: harold, I have provided literature in which others have proposed expanded versions of evolution along with experimental evidence and further proposed research. I am not making this stuff up. All I am asking is that people look at these studies in a fair and open-minded way. Also, in response to Mike's objections that some of these scientists are physicists and mathematicians, sometimes new ideas come from related fields. In fact, great ideas come from combining two or more different science fields. This is nothing new.

Thank you harold. If it appeared that I suggested that well established evolutionary principles are to be swept away was completely unintentional. None of the new ideas published do anything of the kind. They build on evolutionary principles, looking at them from a more global point of view. They are trying to find, as all of us are, a more encompassing theory that includes direct natural selection on a local level, information flow on a higher level, chaotic patterns in DNA and many of the cellular structures and organ structures on an even higher level, etc. None of these ideas contradict the other. Peace at last.

Bill Maz said: Thank you harold. If it appeared that I suggested that well established evolutionary principles are to be swept away was completely unintentional. None of the new ideas published do anything of the kind. They build on evolutionary principles, looking at them from a more global point of view. They are trying to find, as all of us are, a more encompassing theory that includes direct natural selection on a local level, information flow on a higher level, chaotic patterns in DNA and many of the cellular structures and organ structures on an even higher level, etc. None of these ideas contradict the other. Peace at last.

Yes, I think we have to take the sweeping statements about chaotic patterns, information flow, etc. and deal with them more concretely one by one, using simple examples.

There is room for (mathematically) chaotic phenomena locally, such as in the exact pattern of spots on a leopard that you get from a particular combination of coat color genes. But if there was in general no predictability of phenotypes from genotypes, it would be hard to see how natural selection could result in better adaptation.

Bill Maz said: Mike,you really believe that fractals and chaotic behavior have nothing to do with organic chemistry and DNA? I listed citations in my posting above. I will repeat them here.

Bill Maz said: Thank you harold. If it appeared that I suggested that well established evolutionary principles are to be swept away was completely unintentional. None of the new ideas published do anything of the kind. They build on evolutionary principles, looking at them from a more global point of view. They are trying to find, as all of us are, a more encompassing theory that includes direct natural selection on a local level, information flow on a higher level, chaotic patterns in DNA and many of the cellular structures and organ structures on an even higher level, etc. None of these ideas contradict the other. Peace at last.

OK harold, here goes. Chaos theory (the name is unfortunate because it tries to explain apparent chaos) is a mathematical set of equations that try to deal with a system with many variables and which looks random on first glance. Weather was the first topic of study by Lorenz. Mandlebrot, however, famously expanded the topic and was able to show chaotic properties is much of nature.

There are several components of a chaotic system: one is that it has to be sensitive to initial conditions (the famous Butterfly effect). Small initial changes in starting conditions have vast consequences down the road.

Another is order without periodicity. A chaotic system has set rules but constant feedback, time delays and constant changes that make the system seemingly random without repetition. However, when data is plotted in three dimensions, patterns with so-called "strange attractors" emerge. The curved line representing the data always stays within set parameters but loops endlessly toward a center point, never repeating itself. That center point is the strange attractor in that it "attracts" the data toward it.

A third characteristic is that a chaotic system can fluctuate between order and randomness and back again. When the system becomes increasingly unstable, an attractor draws the system back toward it and the system splits (bifurcates) and returns back to balance. Bifurcation results in new possibilities which keeps the system vibrant (able to fluctuate with seeming randomness).

A fourth aspect is fractal geometry. A fractal has several characteristics. One is fractal scaling. The same detail is seen at various scales of magnification. Another is self-similarity. The shape at each scale is similar, but not identical, to the shape at every other scale (think of a bifurcating tree limb, or the vasculature system, or the coastline of a continent).

In reviewing Moreno's paper (above), they found areas of high non-linearity (multifractility) interspersed among areas of low multifractility. The Alu family, for example, which is highly polymorphic has provided variations of it that are new enhancers, promoters and polyadenilations signals to genes. The multifractal scaling in the human genome is mathematically created (in a deterministic way) by superposition of initial sequences. Thus, by increasing multifractility, genetic information content is increased. Areas of the genome with high multifractal scaling gives greater genetic stability and attracts mutations away from those areas of low multifractility. The highly multifractal areas of the genome are considered to be protectors of the genome. Those chromosomes with low multifractility seem to have greater instability. An example they give is chromosome 21 which has low multifractility and which is associated with genetic instability during meiosis and Down's syndrome. "The loss of non-linearity is associated with failure or alterations of many vital systems close to equilibrium."

Thus we see how areas of the genome with fractal, bifurcating, highly polymorphic properties are involved in evolution by increasing genetic information by acting as controls over those areas that are stable with low polymorphism (e.g. protein-coding genes). This is not unexpected news, by the way. The ENCODE studies have shown that gene control is highly convoluted and complex (and multifractal in that they are often repeating units with slight variations) and are the object of high genetic mutations.

But let's get back to chaos theory. Evolution meets most of the criteria. First it is deterministic and has the condition of being sensitive to initial conditions. A small change in the DNA can have large and unpredictable changes in the system. Secondly, it is fractal, at least large regions of it, which has a large effect on evolution because it mutates a great deal while protecting those areas that need to remain stable. It also shows scaled fractal properties (though the paper I review doesn't address this, others do) which means it has similar architecture on various scales of observation. The point of chaos theory is that a cell needs elements that are in constant flux (both in terms of its DNA and its cytoplasm) which are able to respond to evolutionary and environmental pressures all the while bifurcating into new elements and going from stable to unstable states and back again.

I hope this has been of help.

Bill Maz said: OK harold, here goes. Chaos theory (the name is unfortunate because it tries to explain apparent chaos) is a mathematical set of equations that try to deal with a system with many variables and which looks random on first glance. Weather was the first topic of study by Lorenz. Mandlebrot, however, famously expanded the topic and was able to show chaotic properties is much of nature. There are several components of a chaotic system: one is that it has to be sensitive to initial conditions (the famous Butterfly effect). Small initial changes in starting conditions have vast consequences down the road. Another is order without periodicity. A chaotic system has set rules but constant feedback, time delays and constant changes that make the system seemingly random without repetition. However, when data is plotted in three dimensions, patterns with so-called "strange attractors" emerge. The curved line representing the data always stays within set parameters but loops endlessly toward a center point, never repeating itself. That center point is the strange attractor in that it "attracts" the data toward it. A third characteristic is that a chaotic system can fluctuate between order and randomness and back again. When the system becomes increasingly unstable, an attractor draws the system back toward it and the system splits (bifurcates) and returns back to balance. Bifurcation results in new possibilities which keeps the system vibrant (able to fluctuate with seeming randomness). A fourth aspect is fractal geometry. A fractal has several characteristics. One is fractal scaling. The same detail is seen at various scales of magnification. Another is self-similarity. The shape at each scale is similar, but not identical, to the shape at every other scale (think of a bifurcating tree limb, or the vasculature system, or the coastline of a continent). In reviewing Moreno's paper (above), they found areas of high non-linearity (multifractility) interspersed among areas of low multifractility. The Alu family, for example, which is highly polymorphic has provided variations of it that are new enhancers, promoters and polyadenilations signals to genes. The multifractal scaling in the human genome is mathematically created (in a deterministic way) by superposition of initial sequences. Thus, by increasing multifractility, genetic information content is increased. Areas of the genome with high multifractal scaling gives greater genetic stability and attracts mutations away from those areas of low multifractility. The highly multifractal areas of the genome are considered to be protectors of the genome. Those chromosomes with low multifractility seem to have greater instability. An example they give is chromosome 21 which has low multifractility and which is associated with genetic instability during meiosis and Down's syndrome. "The loss of non-linearity is associated with failure or alterations of many vital systems close to equilibrium." Thus we see how areas of the genome with fractal, bifurcating, highly polymorphic properties are involved in evolution by increasing genetic information by acting as controls over those areas that are stable with low polymorphism (e.g. protein-coding genes). This is not unexpected news, by the way. The ENCODE studies have shown that gene control is highly convoluted and complex (and multifractal in that they are often repeating units with slight variations) and are the object of high genetic mutations. But let's get back to chaos theory. Evolution meets most of the criteria. First it is deterministic and has the condition of being sensitive to initial conditions. A small change in the DNA can have large and unpredictable changes in the system. Secondly, it is fractal, at least large regions of it, which has a large effect on evolution because it mutates a great deal while protecting those areas that need to remain stable. It also shows scaled fractal properties (though the paper I review doesn't address this, others do) which means it has similar architecture on various scales of observation. The point of chaos theory is that a cell needs elements that are in constant flux (both in terms of its DNA and its cytoplasm) which are able to respond to evolutionary and environmental pressures all the while bifurcating into new elements and going from stable to unstable states and back again. I hope this has been of help.

SLC, what I meant by deterministic is that a mutation in DNA directly causes other changes in the system. Evolution is "chaotic" in that one cannot go backward and see what the starting point was. Too many random variable events occurred in the process which affected the final outcome that one cannot determine the initial state and thus "walk back the cat."

Bill Maz said: SLC, what I meant by deterministic is that a mutation in DNA directly causes other changes in the system. Evolution is "chaotic" in that one cannot go backward and see what the starting point was. Too many random variable events occurred in the process which affected the final outcome that one cannot determine the initial state and thus "walk back the cat."

Apologies, harold. My comment was meant for bigdakine.

Flint said: Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with Mike. Science is a word loaded with magic - invoke it and you have the admiration, respect, and amazement of the general public, few of whom know what science is any better than the ID creationists. People may have only the vaguest understanding of HOW science produces all the wonderful substance of our lifestyle (and that understanding is often way wrong), but there's no question science DOES produce this stuff consistently. Indeed, scientific advances are frequent (and real) enough that we must regulate how the word "new" can be used in advertising copy! So if the cachet of "science" can be veneered over tired creationist claptrap, this might give it the sort of blind public acceptance science gets. Hence the potemkin village of "research" and "conferences" and "peer review" and mailorder PhD degrees and sectarian doctrine reprhased into sciency-sounding terms created to look new and advanced without any underlying substance of meaning or evidence. Still, I think TomS has a good point. Alchemy and astrology are not pasted over political agendas. No astrologer would suggest passing laws requiring the teaching of astrology or demanding the "academic freedom" to preach astrology, or requiring that astronomy be singled out for "critical thinking" because it's "only a theory." If something other than science had the clout with the general public that science does, creationists would be faking that instead.

Bill Maz said: SLC, what I meant by deterministic is that a mutation in DNA directly causes other changes in the system. Evolution is "chaotic" in that one cannot go backward and see what the starting point was. Too many random variable events occurred in the process which affected the final outcome that one cannot determine the initial state and thus "walk back the cat."

Bill Maz said: Evolution is "chaotic" in that one cannot go backward and see what the starting point was.

Steve P. said: To Shallit's point about the sterility of ID, sure its easy for him to call ID out on it. For now anyway. Think about it. How long was the lag time from Epicurus to Darwin? 2K+ years? So ID being 20 years in the 'supposed' sterility docket is like what, nano seconds in comparison.

eric said:

Bill Maz said: Evolution is "chaotic" in that one cannot go backward and see what the starting point was.

So, lets say I have a population of organisms. I observe and record the DNA sequence of each generation for thousands of generations. I observe a significant change in phenotype (like: being able to digest a new substance) at some point. Are you saying that it is impossible for me to review the DNA codes of the generatinos before and after the phenotypic change and analyze which genetic differences might have caused the phenotype change?

Steve P. said: Wrong on several counts.

eric said:

Bill Maz said: Evolution is "chaotic" in that one cannot go backward and see what the starting point was.

So, lets say I have a population of organisms. I observe and record the DNA sequence of each generation for thousands of generations. I observe a significant change in phenotype (like: being able to digest a new substance) at some point. Are you saying that it is impossible for me to review the DNA codes of the generatinos before and after the phenotypic change and analyze which genetic differences might have caused the phenotype change?

Flint said: Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with Mike. Science is a word loaded with magic - invoke it and you have the admiration, respect, and amazement of the general public, few of whom know what science is any better than the ID creationists. People may have only the vaguest understanding of HOW science produces all the wonderful substance of our lifestyle (and that understanding is often way wrong), but there's no question science DOES produce this stuff consistently.

Steve P. said: Wrong on several counts. 1) Science did not/does not produce 'all the wonderful substance of life'. Technology did/does. Why do you(pl) continually conflate the two? Is it purposeful or simple ignorance? 2) The vast majority of published science is bogus. You know google will confirm this. So its a dirty house that should be constantly cleaned but there are no decent measures in place. Like Byers alluded to, ID's quality trumps the vast majority of 'mainstream' science' fecundity . So hey, don't pop the messenger. 3) The problem is that in fact it is evolution that is your modern day alchemy. Its jazzed up pseudo-science You take uncontroversial 'change in allele frequencies over time' which explains minor change and co-opt this observation to explain your grand evolutionary transubstantiation. The main thrust of the argument is 'hey, there is nothing preventing the plausibility of step-wise fortuitious mutations building complexity'. Its that easy shake and bake of ND. To Shallit's point about the sterility of ID, sure its easy for him to call ID out on it. For now anyway. Think about it. How long was the lag time from Epicurus to Darwin? 2K+ years? So ID being 20 years in the 'supposed' sterility docket is like what, nano seconds in comparison. Oh, and that 'ole standby "they lie" schtick is just plain silly. I know, it rolls off the tongue so deliciously, irresistably.

It is not the man who denies the gods worshipped by the multitude, who is impious, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believes about them.

Bill Maz said: eric, what chaos theory says is that the variables of the system which caused those DNA mutations are so many that, given the same starting point, you would not get the same end point every time.

But if you didn't have the starting DNA sequence, then by looking at the end DNA sequence you couldn't figure out the starting DNA sequence. That's because change in a chaotic system is non-linear. It is fractal.

Steve P. said: The vast majority of published science is bogus.

You know google will confirm this.

eric said:

Bill Maz said: eric, what chaos theory says is that the variables of the system which caused those DNA mutations are so many that, given the same starting point, you would not get the same end point every time.

Standard, modern evolution works just fine with ths sort of mutation. So how is what you're saying a critique of standard theory? I doubt all mutations are as unpredictable as you seem to think, but I'd agree with you that at a minimum at least some are; those caused by cosmic rays. Evolution deals with them just fine. So I don't see where "oh noes, some mutations are chaotically unpredictable" is a problem for evolutionary theory.

But if you didn't have the starting DNA sequence, then by looking at the end DNA sequence you couldn't figure out the starting DNA sequence. That's because change in a chaotic system is non-linear. It is fractal.

Well, biologists are rarely in such position. Even if a direct lineal ancester is not available, they can look at close relations. Since you have accepted that the availability of a direct lineal ancester allows scientists to make reasonable conjectures about mechanism and history, surely you also accept that the availability of less-close relations will allow for the same, albeit the conjectures may not be as strong. Yes? In any event, I am not sure how this observation is relevant to evolutionary theory, since there is no need for animals to go back and figure out the starting DNA sequence of their parent in order to develop. The ability of humans to figure out what happened is not necessary for the standard TOE to work.

Steve P. The Moron Bullshitted: Wrong on several counts. 1) Science did not/does not produce 'all the wonderful substance of life'. Technology did/does. Why do you(pl) continually conflate the two? Is it purposeful or simple ignorance?

2) The vast majority of published science is bogus. You know google will confirm this.

So its a dirty house that should be constantly cleaned but there are no decent measures in place.

Like Byers alluded to, ID's quality trumps the vast majority of 'mainstream' science' fecundity.

If you disagree So hey, don't pop the messenger.

3) The problem is that in fact it is evolution that is your modern day alchemy. Its jazzed up pseudo-science You take uncontroversial 'change in allele frequencies over time' which explains minor change and co-opt this observation to explain your grand evolutionary transubstantiation. The main thrust of the argument is 'hey, there is nothing preventing the plausibility of step-wise fortuitious mutations building complexity'. Its that easy shake and bake of ND.

To Shallit's point about the sterility of ID, sure its easy for him to call ID out on it. For now anyway. Think about it. How long was the lag time from Epicurus to Darwin? 2K+ years? So ID being 20 years in the 'supposed' sterility docket is like what, nano seconds in comparison.

Oh, and that 'ole standby "they lie" schtick is just plain silly. I know, it rolls off the tongue so deliciously, irresistably.

Paul Burnett said:

Steve P. said: The vast majority of published science is bogus.

...claims the anti-science troll. A "majority" would be 50% plus 1, so a "vast majority" would be...75%? 80% or 90%? Which creationist website did you get this particular turd nugget of disinformation from?

You know google will confirm this.

Really? Please show us your inquiry script that revealed this.

Bill Maz said: eric, chaos theory has many parts to it. (See my post above). One is that a chaotic system is not completely random. It fluctuates, bifurcates in a fractal manner, and goes back and forth between randomness and stability. It also constantly closes in on points on a graph (attractors) in similar but never exact ways. What this means is that the system is mathematically bound within certain parameters and that it has direction toward those attractors.

Chaos theory doesn't challenge the standard model of evolution, it looks at it on a more global level. If evolution is "chaotic" in precise mathematical terms, it means that it has mathematical boundaries and maybe even mathematical direction.

Steve P. said: 3) The problem is that in fact it is evolution that is your modern day alchemy.

eric said:

Bill Maz said: eric, chaos theory has many parts to it. (See my post above). One is that a chaotic system is not completely random. It fluctuates, bifurcates in a fractal manner, and goes back and forth between randomness and stability. It also constantly closes in on points on a graph (attractors) in similar but never exact ways. What this means is that the system is mathematically bound within certain parameters and that it has direction toward those attractors.

Okay. That sounds like you're saying that chaos theory might create some interesting hypotheses for biologists to look at. In the future. So far in your posts, I have not seen any specific hypothesis formulated. Is that a correct reading of your posts?

Chaos theory doesn't challenge the standard model of evolution, it looks at it on a more global level. If evolution is "chaotic" in precise mathematical terms, it means that it has mathematical boundaries and maybe even mathematical direction.

That's the sort of interesting science-lite conversation I might have with a co-worker over beers. But if he shows up in the office the next morning, asking my advice for turning his ideas into a journal submission or grant proposal, I'd tell him the same thing I'll tell you: you need to get specific. What boundaries? What direction? Show me your assumptions + math. Does your hypothesis lead to suggestions for interesting experiments, if so, what experiments are they? Does it predict we will find something different in evolution experiments (like Lenski's) than we would otherwise expect, and if so, what unexpected prediction about future results does it make? And, incidentally, chaotic system dynamics describe how such a system would evolve if left unperturbed. But biological evolution is not left unperturbed. There are things like meteor impacts (and many smaller perturbations) to deal with. So as I see it, there is no guarantee that actual evolution on earth will have either the limitations or the directionality a mathematical treatment of it as a chaotic system would predict.

ogremk5 said:

Flint said: Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with Mike. Science is a word loaded with magic - invoke it and you have the admiration, respect, and amazement of the general public, few of whom know what science is any better than the ID creationists. People may have only the vaguest understanding of HOW science produces all the wonderful substance of our lifestyle (and that understanding is often way wrong), but there's no question science DOES produce this stuff consistently.

Sorry to be very, very late, but a recent AP Poll shows that 1/3 of the US population actively distrusts science and scientists. http://skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2012/12/16/even-people-who-doubt-science-think-the-earth-is-warming/

Steve P. said: Wrong on several counts. 1) Science did not/does not produce 'all the wonderful substance of life'. Technology did/does. Why do you(pl) continually conflate the two? Is it purposeful or simple ignorance?

Bill Maz appears to be confusing the sensitivity to boundary or initial conditions in chaos theory with the huge multiplicity of states that emerge in complex molecular systems as they become more complex.

If he could just take a few minutes to do a simple order-of-magnitude calculation that requires nothing more than some high school chemistry and physics, he might be able to appreciate the difference. (To repeat, scaling up those electron volt sized interactions to macroscopic sizes on the order of meters and kilograms produces energies on the order of 10²⁶ joules or roughly 10¹⁰ megatons of TNT.)

Chaos theory doesn’t explain convergent evolution in which similar solutions are arrived at from completely different directions in completely different organisms. Such solutions could not happen if the interactions within molecular systems and between those systems and the environment in which they are immersed were weak and those systems met the conditions of chaos theory.

Soft matter systems are called soft because thermal kinetic energies the binding energies within these systems are comparable. But these systems are relatively stable as long as they are kept within a narrow temperature range; and the evolutionary changes that can occur are due to the enormous number of available states that exist as a result of the sheer complexity of these systems. This is not the same as sensitivity to boundary or initial conditions.

Sensitivity to initial and boundary conditions can occur in classical systems in which the subsequent sets of trajectories of evolution form a continuum. But atomic and molecular systems in organic compounds and living organisms have huge multiplicities of discrete states.

The fact that the underlying templates that reside in the genetic material of living organism are discrete means that we can distinguish what we call species. Those molecular bonds at the genetic level are huge relative to other bonds that make up the soft matter of the organism (on the order of an eV as compared to tenths or hundredths of an eV in soft tissue and nervous systems). Epigenetic changes may lead to isolation of gene pools, but those changes are energetically small compared to the energies required to change the genes themselves.

Chaos theory is not the answer to understanding evolution; and getting hung up on it just means one is overlooking more fundamental causes.

First reason - there are at least three invariant features of ID/creationism - 1) They will say anything to “deny evolution”. 2) There is always a close connection to authoritarian politics. 3) They keep using the same slogans, over and over again; they add new ones once in a while but the old ones never go away.

— harold

Reading a few more comments I see that Steve P. on this very thread. Maybe he and Byers will prove me wrong and have that long-awaited debate on the age of life and common descent.

Bill Maz said: OK harold, here goes. Chaos theory (the name is unfortunate because it tries to explain apparent chaos) is a mathematical set of equations that try to deal with a system with many variables and which looks random on first glance. Weather was the first topic of study by Lorenz. Mandlebrot, however, famously expanded the topic and was able to show chaotic properties is much of nature.

More specifically Mandelbrot showed that fractal geometry is part and parcel of nature. Chaos theory is not *a set* of mathematical equations per se, as there are many mathematical systems that exhibit *deterministic chaos* (or apparent randomness). These include a number of different physical systems including weather. What Lorenz did is trim a basic weather forecast model down to a set of three coupled non-linear equations, that produced time series which had basically the same underlying strange attractor as the more complete model. Chaos *theory* was born and became primarily concerned with what is minimally necessary, in a mathematical sense, to create a system whose dynamics is governed by strange attractors. There are a number of systems that can change from simple attractor dynamics to chaotic dynamics via the change of a single parameter. And research focused on how this change was accomplished. For example the Ruelle-Takens-Newhouse route to chaos is a prime example, of how a system can go from a fixed point attractor (stable, no time dependence) or a ring type attractor (periodic orbit) to a strange attractor.

There are several components of a chaotic system: one is that it has to be sensitive to initial conditions (the famous Butterfly effect). Small initial changes in starting conditions have vast consequences down the road. Another is order without periodicity. A chaotic system has set rules but constant feedback, time delays and constant changes that make the system seemingly random without repetition. However, when data is plotted in three dimensions, patterns with so-called "strange attractors" emerge. The curved line representing the data always stays within set parameters but loops endlessly toward a center point, never repeating itself. That center point is the strange attractor in that it "attracts" the data toward it. A third characteristic is that a chaotic system can fluctuate between order and randomness and back again. When the system becomes increasingly unstable, an attractor draws the system back toward it and the system splits (bifurcates) and returns back to balance. Bifurcation results in new possibilities which keeps the system vibrant (able to fluctuate with seeming randomness). A fourth aspect is fractal geometry. A fractal has several characteristics. One is fractal scaling. The same detail is seen at various scales of magnification. Another is self-similarity. The shape at each scale is similar, but not identical, to the shape at every other scale (think of a bifurcating tree limb, or the vasculature system, or the coastline of a continent).

Fractal geometry best describes the topology of strange attractors themselves. That is the fundamental character of their *strangeness*.

In reviewing Moreno's paper (above), they found areas of high non-linearity (multifractility) interspersed among areas of low multifractility. The Alu family, for example, which is highly polymorphic has provided variations of it that are new enhancers, promoters and polyadenilations signals to genes. The multifractal scaling in the human genome is mathematically created (in a deterministic way) by superposition of initial sequences. Thus, by increasing multifractility, genetic information content is increased. Areas of the genome with high multifractal scaling gives greater genetic stability and attracts mutations away from those areas of low multifractility. The highly multifractal areas of the genome are considered to be protectors of the genome. Those chromosomes with low multifractility seem to have greater instability. An example they give is chromosome 21 which has low multifractility and which is associated with genetic instability during meiosis and Down's syndrome. "The loss of non-linearity is associated with failure or alterations of many vital systems close to equilibrium." Thus we see how areas of the genome with fractal, bifurcating, highly polymorphic properties are involved in evolution by increasing genetic information by acting as controls over those areas that are stable with low polymorphism (e.g. protein-coding genes). This is not unexpected news, by the way. The ENCODE studies have shown that gene control is highly convoluted and complex (and multifractal in that they are often repeating units with slight variations) and are the object of high genetic mutations. But let's get back to chaos theory. Evolution meets most of the criteria. First it is deterministic and has the condition of being sensitive to initial conditions. A small change in the DNA can have large and unpredictable changes in the system. Secondly, it is fractal, at least large regions of it, which has a large effect on evolution because it mutates a great deal while protecting those areas that need to remain stable. It also shows scaled fractal properties (though the paper I review doesn't address this, others do) which means it has similar architecture on various scales of observation. The point of chaos theory is that a cell needs elements that are in constant flux (both in terms of its DNA and its cytoplasm) which are able to respond to evolutionary and environmental pressures all the while bifurcating into new elements and going from stable to unstable states and back again. I hope this has been of help.

Bill Maz said:

eric said:

Bill Maz said: Evolution is "chaotic" in that one cannot go backward and see what the starting point was.

So, lets say I have a population of organisms. I observe and record the DNA sequence of each generation for thousands of generations. I observe a significant change in phenotype (like: being able to digest a new substance) at some point. Are you saying that it is impossible for me to review the DNA codes of the generatinos before and after the phenotypic change and analyze which genetic differences might have caused the phenotype change?

eric, what chaos theory says is that the variables of the system which caused those DNA mutations are so many that, given the same starting point, you would not get the same end point every time. Yes, you can go backward if you had the DNA sequences of both starting and end point products and conjecture how the changes came about. But if you didn't have the starting DNA sequence, then by looking at the end DNA sequence you couldn't figure out the starting DNA sequence. That's because change in a chaotic system is non-linear. It is fractal. It constantly responds to external and internal influences, all of which are in a dynamic state, that it is impossible to recreate them going backward. (It's a bit like entropy, but only as an analogy. You can't figure out the starting positions of a bunch of marbles by looking at their position at present.)

Steve P. said: To Shallit's point about the sterility of ID, sure its easy for him to call ID out on it. For now anyway. Think about it. How long was the lag time from Epicurus to Darwin? 2K+ years? So ID being 20 years in the 'supposed' sterility docket is like what, nano seconds in comparison.

Just Bob said:

Steve P. said: To Shallit's point about the sterility of ID, sure its easy for him to call ID out on it. For now anyway. Think about it. How long was the lag time from Epicurus to Darwin? 2K+ years? So ID being 20 years in the 'supposed' sterility docket is like what, nano seconds in comparison.

So, um, when will ID start producing substantive worthwhile any results that give us more control over the biological world and our own health and longevity?

And the science "animal" has made possible the technology of, oh, say, the VACCINES that have most likely SAVED YOUR LIFE. What technology has the ID "animal" made possible? Tell us one technology that you think MIGHT be enhanced using the "theory" and "discoveries" of ID.

Steve P. -

1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you if present?

2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC?

3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not?

4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?

5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?

6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

9) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of physical reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if it can be symbolic about other scientific issues?

Sylvilagus said:

Steve P. said: To Shallit's point about the sterility of ID, sure its easy for him to call ID out on it. For now anyway. Think about it. How long was the lag time from Epicurus to Darwin? 2K+ years? So ID being 20 years in the 'supposed' sterility docket is like what, nano seconds in comparison.

You can't even do basic math right. Nanoseconds in comparison??? 20 years is not nanoseconds, its 20 years. And in comparison to what? 20 years compared to 2000 years is a ratio of 1:100, hardly 1 : 1000000000 which is what nano means.

eric said:

Sylvilagus said:

Steve P. said: To Shallit's point about the sterility of ID, sure its easy for him to call ID out on it. For now anyway. Think about it. How long was the lag time from Epicurus to Darwin? 2K+ years? So ID being 20 years in the 'supposed' sterility docket is like what, nano seconds in comparison.

You can't even do basic math right. Nanoseconds in comparison??? 20 years is not nanoseconds, its 20 years. And in comparison to what? 20 years compared to 2000 years is a ratio of 1:100, hardly 1 : 1000000000 which is what nano means.

No, no, he's convinced me. In 1,980 years ID will finally produce something that will make it worthy of funding and notice.

Steve P. whined: Just Bob, the argument from utility. again!; conflating science with technology. Science is about knowledge and understanding. Technology is about translating that into useful products. Two different animals.

Some feeling for Bill Maz and his perspicacity can be found by reading his blog. For example, here he states:

"The Discovery Institute maintains a list (most recently updated in December 2011) of over 500 scientists that have signed the statement “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
These scientists include notable professors from the most prestigious institutions in the world (MIT, Princeton, UCLA, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, etc.)"

Someone who swallows Discovery Institute kool-aid and then says how refreshing it is cannot be depended on to give an accurate picture of evolution.

Jeffrey Shallit said: Some feeling for Bill Maz and his perspicacity can be found by reading his blog. For example, here he states: "The Discovery Institute maintains a list (most recently updated in December 2011) of over 500 scientists that have signed the statement “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” These scientists include notable professors from the most prestigious institutions in the world (MIT, Princeton, UCLA, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, etc.)" Someone who swallows Discovery Institute kool-aid and then says how refreshing it is cannot be depended on to give an accurate picture of evolution.

harold said: 8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

Jeffrey Shallit said: Some feeling for Bill Maz and his perspicacity can be found by reading his blog. For example, here he states: "The Discovery Institute maintains a list (most recently updated in December 2011) of over 500 scientists that have signed the statement “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” These scientists include notable professors from the most prestigious institutions in the world (MIT, Princeton, UCLA, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, etc.)" Someone who swallows Discovery Institute kool-aid and then says how refreshing it is cannot be depended on to give an accurate picture of evolution.

Sorry Bill, I have to disagree. The reason that people refuse to accept the theory of evolution is NOT because it is incomplete. These people have ample evidence that the theory is essentially correct. They neither know nor care about the subtle nuances of the fine details. They will literally not be convinced by any evidence whatsoever. Of course the theory of evolution is incomplete. That's why I have a lab. Of course we should work to discover more thing s and make it more complete. But don't fool yourself into think that it will convince anyone who chooses not to v=be convinced.

If you doubt what I say, just take a gander at the bathroom wall. Six hundred pages of some guy trying to convince everyone that dinosaurs were created on the same day as humans and that they were originally herbivores before some chick tricked her husband into eating a magic apple and they all drowned in the magic flood because they were too stupid to get on the magic ark. And he absolutely refuses to provide any evidence for any of this, despite the fact that he admits that the fossil record is the only way we know that dinosaurs even existed! Try telling this guy that the theory of evolution is incomplete and see where it gets you.

Now BIll, if you come here spouting off about chaos theory, don't be surprised if some people get a little upset and start trying to peek under the sheeps clothing. This is something that creationist are literally obsessed about. It isn't a threat to anyone, it's a buzz word that creationists mistakenly pee their pants over. Advancing the theory of evolution is great, just be careful which blanket you pull over yourself if you climb into bed with someone.

Flint said:

ogremk5 said:

Flint said: Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with Mike. Science is a word loaded with magic - invoke it and you have the admiration, respect, and amazement of the general public, few of whom know what science is any better than the ID creationists. People may have only the vaguest understanding of HOW science produces all the wonderful substance of our lifestyle (and that understanding is often way wrong), but there's no question science DOES produce this stuff consistently.

Sorry to be very, very late, but a recent AP Poll shows that 1/3 of the US population actively distrusts science and scientists. http://skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2012/12/16/even-people-who-doubt-science-think-the-earth-is-warming/

Your link has an update, which says they looked at the question about trusting science, and it was ONLY with regard to global warming. Not to science generally.

Six hundred pages of some guy trying to convince everyone that dinosaurs were created on the same day as humans...

— DS

DS said: Sorry Bill, I have to disagree. The reason that people refuse to accept the theory of evolution is NOT because it is incomplete. These people have ample evidence that the theory is essentially correct. They neither know nor care about the subtle nuances of the fine details. They will literally not be convinced by any evidence whatsoever. Of course the theory of evolution is incomplete. That's why I have a lab. Of course we should work to discover more thing s and make it more complete. But don't fool yourself into think that it will convince anyone who chooses not to v=be convinced. If you doubt what I say, just take a gander at the bathroom wall. Six hundred pages of some guy trying to convince everyone that dinosaurs were created on the same day as humans and that they were originally herbivores before some chick tricked her husband into eating a magic apple and they all drowned in the magic flood because they were too stupid to get on the magic ark. And he absolutely refuses to provide any evidence for any of this, despite the fact that he admits that the fossil record is the only way we know that dinosaurs even existed! Try telling this guy that the theory of evolution is incomplete and see where it gets you. Now BIll, if you come here spouting off about chaos theory, don't be surprised if some people get a little upset and start trying to peek under the sheeps clothing. This is something that creationist are literally obsessed about. It isn't a threat to anyone, it's a buzz word that creationists mistakenly pee their pants over. Advancing the theory of evolution is great, just be careful which blanket you pull over yourself if you climb into bed with someone.

Frank J said:

Six hundred pages of some guy trying to convince everyone that dinosaurs were created on the same day as humans...

— DS

"Everyone"? Or just those he would call "Darwinists"? Bill reminds us that ~46% think that humans were created in their present form in the last ~10K years. But when the question is worded unequivocally in terms of a young earth, the % drops to a mere 22%. I'll take a wild guess that this guy has not posted on 600 pages at OEC and ID sites.

Bill Maz said: It is amazing to me that you guys are still arguing with IDists after all this time.

My reason for putting that statement on my site is to foment discussion and to argue, despite it being from a disreputable source, that some scientists, even if only a few are from the field of evolutionary biology, have arrived at the conclusion that evolutionary theory as it stands now is incomplete.

They revert to religion because they don't see an all encompassing scientific theory, much like a "theory of everything" in physics, that explains all of what we are finding in evolution.

I do want to go forward to look at other ideas, all scientifically based, that can give us a more comprehensive model. This may sound like clap-trap to some, but as I have cited above, there are some scientists who don't, including those that are researching information and chaotic mechanisms to add to our understanding of how evolution works. I don't think this should be a threat to anyone.

TomS said:

harold said: 8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

Some may object that it is a tenet of Christian faith that all things are created, so there can be no example of a thing which is not created. (If we identify "creation" with "design".) So I suggest that this could be gently modified: 8') What is an example of something, even hypothetical or impossible, that is less likely to be designed?

Bill wrote:

"However, there is a fourth. They sense, as even as some scientists do, that the story is incomplete. They revert to religion because they don’t see an all encompassing scientific theory, much like a “theory of everything” in physics, that explains all of what we are finding in evolution."

I don't know of anyone who rejects the theory of evolution because it is incomplete. As Eric points out, that makes no logical sense. If you are willing to do that., you are willing to reject any and all science. The theory will always be incomplete, so will every other theory. There is no need for it to be "all encompassing" in order for it to be valid.

On the other hand, I agree. That's no reason to stop studying and improving the theory. It just seems strange that one would use the same language and arguments to improve the theory as those who reject the theory. If you really want to do good science, you need to be careful to distance yourself from the crackpots and not use the same arguments that they use. I don't think any real scientist will have any problem with a real improvement or refinement or expansion of the theory of evolution based on solid evidence.

If someone proposes deity who "designed" living cells, but that deity didn't design, say, rocks or dirt, then that's overtly anti-Christian statement. Almost all sects of Christianity hold that the Christian God created/designed the entire universe.

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty maker [creator] of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

If you really want to do good science, you need to be careful to distance yourself from the crackpots and not use the same arguments that they use.

Bill Maz said: However, there is a fourth. They sense, as even as some scientists do, that the story is incomplete. They revert to religion because they don't see an all encompassing scientific theory, much like a "theory of everything" in physics, that explains all of what we are finding in evolution.

Bill Maz said: I use my blog to invite discussion. As I have stated many times above, and as I have tried to argue, ID has no scientific basis for its ideas. It is amazing to me that you guys are still arguing with IDists after all this time. The reason I haven't argued against ID in this blog is that I thought the discussion has long been over.

Even if the 22% is true, don’t you think that’s a lot? Nearly a quarter of the population? In the 21st century? I say that’s astonishing.

— Bill Maz

Bill Maz said: Even if the 22% is true, don't you think that's a lot? Nearly a quarter of the population? In the 21st century? I say that's astonishing.

@TomS:

As you know, a sizable minority (I've heard 30% but that seems high) believes that the sun revolves around the earth. I'm not sure how much that group overlaps with evolution-deniers, but certainly at least 70-80%.

Their reasons for denying heliocentrism may not be as motivated by wanting (needing?) scripture to be literally true, as they are for the heliocentric YECs and OECs, but like the latter, they - and again I mean the rank and file, not committed activists - form their conclusions on sound bites, not evidence, and rarely consider that their conclusions flatly contradict those of the other people who otherwise deny the conclusions of mainstream science.

I'll say it for the billionth time. The big tent scam, aka ID, is the most devious form of anti-science activism. But is also a tacit admission that Biblical creationism - YEC, OEC, geocentric versions - are complete scientific failures, not just legal failures. In a way, Bill Maz is right. How ID is both sterile, and "creationism" as most scientists define it, has been done to death - though that still needs to be repeated for new audiences. What screams for more emphasis is alerting people that ID is not only not "creationism" as most people define it, but an admission, and cover-up, of its fatal flaws and embarrassing contradictions. A scam by any definition.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I hear two arguments here which seem contradictory. One is that we need to keep arguing with IDers on this blog and others because we need to prevent them from teaching ID in science class, etc. The second is that no matter how much scientific evidence for evolution you show them, they will never listen to rational thought because they believe what they believe and that's it. So, my question remains. Why waste your time trying to convince them of something you admit they will never be convinced of? I agree we should all prevent ID from being taught in school, but that fight is in the courts, not on a blog. I will bet that NO Creationist or ID fanatic has EVER been convinced to become an evolutionist by arguments on this blog.

Maybe the argument continues because people derive pleasure from arguing? Your thoughts.

The reason is the proportion of people who think that "the jury's still out on evolution". They may be as many as 70% of Americans.

We know that the truly hard-core lunatics can't be convinced by evidence or rational argument. But countering them still has value. Nobody knows who's watching, here. Evidence and rational argument must be presented for people who value them. We have to hope that that's most people - and we have to actually present that.

Because the jury is not still out. The verdict was in over a hundred years ago. The appeals were all denied. It's down and dusted. The species evolved. A good deal is known about exactly how, and along which paths, and why. Some things are still not understood. But evolution happened, the species evolved over deep time, and all life has common ancestors.

Why waste your time trying to convince them of something you admit they will never be convinced of?

— Bill Maz

Bill Maz said: I will bet that NO Creationist or ID fanatic has EVER been convinced to become an evolutionist by arguments on this blog.

Jeffrey Shallit said:

Bill Maz said: I will bet that NO Creationist or ID fanatic has EVER been convinced to become an evolutionist by arguments on this blog.

You would lose that bet. Panda's Thumb commenters get email from time to time from former creationists who thank them for the rational arguments that convinced them of the truth of evolution. Yet another example of the failed crystal ball of Bill Maz.

Jeffrey Shallit said:

Bill Maz said: I will bet that NO Creationist or ID fanatic has EVER been convinced to become an evolutionist by arguments on this blog.

You would lose that bet. Panda's Thumb commenters get email from time to time from former creationists who thank them for the rational arguments that convinced them of the truth of evolution. Yet another example of the failed crystal ball of Bill Maz.

I stand corrected.

Panda’s Thumb commenters get email from time to time from former creationists who thank them for the rational arguments that convinced them of the truth of evolution.

— Jeffrey Shallit

Malcolm said:

Bill Maz said: However, there is a fourth. They sense, as even as some scientists do, that the story is incomplete. They revert to religion because they don't see an all encompassing scientific theory, much like a "theory of everything" in physics, that explains all of what we are finding in evolution.

Are you implying that the people in other countries, countries where more people understand evolution, are stupid? That somehow those in America who don't understand evolution are more clued up than people elsewhere? No, I am saying that because people in other countries are not as religious, especially in European countries, as people in America, and because they are more educated in science, they trust science more. Evolution, as I will point out in the next posting, is not the same as any other science in that it directly confronts the biblical a idea that man was created in the image of God. And for that, you need a higher level of proof to convince them.

eric said:

Bill Maz said: It is amazing to me that you guys are still arguing with IDists after all this time.

I see it largely as a social issue. They are trying to change the way science is taught in schools - in a bad way. I oppose that. And I see fighting that as a worthwhile cause no matter how intellectually silly or easily dismissed I think their arguments are. If they want to stop messing about with HS curricula and go back to teaching creationism in sunday school, that's fine by me. If they want to do research on ID-style hypotheses, that's also fine by me.

My reason for putting that statement on my site is to foment discussion and to argue, despite it being from a disreputable source, that some scientists, even if only a few are from the field of evolutionary biology, have arrived at the conclusion that evolutionary theory as it stands now is incomplete.

So the frak what? Physics is incomplete. Cosmology is incomplete. What we teach in those subjects is the best, mainstream methodology and conclusions they offer. So why would we do anything different in biology?

They revert to religion because they don't see an all encompassing scientific theory, much like a "theory of everything" in physics, that explains all of what we are finding in evolution.

I very much doubt that. You don't find anyone saying "QM can't be aligned with GR, therefore I'll be a buddhist." People on the whole seem perfectly fine with science that can answer a lot of questions but not all of them. People also don't reject cannonball physics and other well-settled science just because there are holes in other parts of our scientific knowledge. Which is what you are implying they are doing here: rejecting the very well-settled fact of descent with modification because of holes in our understanding of what mechanisms played the most prominent roles. I don't buy it. I think its much more likely that if they are rejecting well-settled science, its because of conflicting non-scientific beliefs, not because of some gap in scientific knowledge quite separate from the well-settled bits they

I do want to go forward to look at other ideas, all scientifically based, that can give us a more comprehensive model. This may sound like clap-trap to some, but as I have cited above, there are some scientists who don't, including those that are researching information and chaotic mechanisms to add to our understanding of how evolution works. I don't think this should be a threat to anyone. I disagree with you on one point: that evolution is just like any other science. Evolution goes to the heart of Biblical thinking, which is that man was created in the image of God. So it has an Emotional higher value for them than quantum mechanics or relativity theory, which they don't understand anyway. The problem for them, as I try to understand it, is that evolution says that Man just happened to evolve in the form that he is today. Randomly, and without an ultimate purpose. That goes squarely against Biblical thinking more that any other science does. Now, if they were intelligent and rational people, they would conclude that just like QM and relativity theory, evolution is just a law that exists. God could have created the laws of evolution just like He could have created the other mathematical rules of the universe. And none here, I don't think, would have any objection to that because there is no scientific way of proving it one way or the other. But the IDists or the Creationists can't accept that, because, unlike QM or relativity theory, it goes against direct biblical teaching. So there lies the rub. Is Man special? Was there an inevitability to Man's evolution? Contemporary thinking says no, it was a result of a multitude of forces that resulted in what we have today, based on random activity. But is that truly the case? What I have been trying to suggest is that the are lines of investigation which try to find an overarching pattern, such as those looking for an information line of inquiry, or a chaotic one, or even a quantum one, which try to address this question. Not whether Man was destined to look the way he does, but whether Intelligence was an evolutionary advantage, or whether there was mathematical directions toward which chaotic attractors lead evolution. Yes, I know from reading these blogs that these terms seem to be inflammatory words. But they shouldn't be. And yes, I know that many of these ideas can be used by Creationists to put forth their own ideas. We know that when the Big Bang theory was proposed that the Pope at the time tried to use it as a proof that God existed. Then he backed off. In the end, religion has to distance itself from the science of the universe in which we find ourselves. The only place where God can have a role is in the origin of the mathematical laws that govern the universe as a whole. And that is where we need to lead these people in understanding, that evolution is just another of the many laws of the universe that exist, by the "grace of God" if you want, but in any event, they have no scientific explanation of their origin. We all have to live with them.

Science deals with the natural explanations of natural phenomena. Intelligent design is also sterile as far as science is concerned. To be considered as real science, it must be able to explain and estimate the natural phenomena. Intelligent design proponents simply say that life is too complicated to have production naturally. Therefore, an intelligent human being i.e, God must have directly intervened whenever it selected to cause the diversity of the species - OMICS Publishing Group

Remember; there is no such thing as consensus, in science!

landmark said: Remember; there is no such thing as consensus, in science!

DS said:

landmark said: Remember; there is no such thing as consensus, in science!

No, there is no such thing as consensus in religion.

DS said:

landmark said: Remember; there is no such thing as consensus, in science!

No, there is no such thing as consensus in religion.