Thank you Elizabeth for this opportunity-
Good day- Over the past many, many years, IDists have been telling people that intelligent design is not anti-evolution. Most people understand and accept that, while others just refuse to, no matter what.
With that said, in this post I will provide the evidence (again) that firmly demonstrates that ID is not anti-evolution. I will be presenting several authoritative definitions of “evolution” followed by what the ID leadership has to say about evolution. So without any further adieu, I give you-
Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution
”.
In order to have a discussion about whether or not Intelligent Design is anti-evolution or not we must first define “evolution”. Fortunately there are resources available that do just that.
Defining “evolution”:
Finally, during the evolutionary synthesis, a consensus emerged: “Evolution is the change in properties of populations of organisms over time”- Ernst Mayr page 8 of “What Evolution Is”
Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms or groups of such populations, over the course of generations. The development, or ontogeny, of an individual organism is not considered evolution: individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are ‘heritable’ via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population, such as the alleles that determine the different human blood types, to the alterations that led from the earliest organisms to dinosaurs, bees, snapdragons, and humans. Douglas J. Futuyma (1998) Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc. Sunderland MA p.4
Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. PBS series “Evolution” endorsed by the NCSE
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations) UC Berkley
In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
Evolution- in biology, the word means genetically based change in a line of descent over time.- Biology: Concepts and Applications Starr 5th edition 2003 page 10
Those are all accepted definitions of biological “evolution”. (Perhaps someone will present some definitions that differ from those. Most likely I will only comment on any differences if the differences are relevant.)
With biology, where-ever there is heritable genetic change there is evolution and where-ever you have offspring that are (genetically) different from the parent(s) you have descent with modification.
Next I will show what Intelligent Design says about biological evolution and people can see for themselves that Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution:
Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism (MAY 2000)
Scott refers to me as an intelligent design “creationist,” even though I clearly write in my book Darwin’s Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think “evolution occurred, but was guided by God.”- Dr Michael Behe
Dr Behe has repeatedly confirmed he is OK with common ancestry. And he has repeatedly made it clear that ID is an argument against materialistic evolution (see below), ie necessity and chance.
Then we have:
What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging?– a short video featuring Stephen C. Meyer on Intelligent Design. He also makes it clear that ID is not anti-evolution.
Next Dembski and Wells weigh in:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) neither requires nor excludes speciation- even speciation by Darwinian mechanisms. ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable. This is a conceptual possibility within ID, but it is not the only possibility. ID precludes neither significant variation within species nor the evolution of new species from earlier forms. Rather, it maintains that there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce. At the same time, it holds that intelligence is fully capable of supplementing such mechanisms, interacting and influencing the material world, and thereby guiding it into certain physical states to the exclusion of others. To effect such guidance, intelligence must bring novel information to expression inside living forms. Exactly how this happens remains for now an open question, to be answered on the basis of scientific evidence. The point to note, however, is that intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way intelligent design is compatible with speciation. page 109 of “The Design of Life”
and
And that brings us to a true either-or. If the choice between common design and common ancestry is a false either-or, the choice between intelligent design and materialistic evolution is a true either-or. Materialistic evolution does not only embrace common ancestry; it also rejects any real design in the evolutionary process. Intelligent design, by contrast, contends that biological design is real and empirically detectable regardless of whether it occurs within an evolutionary process or in discrete independent stages. The verdict is not yet in, and proponents of intelligent design themselves hold differing views on the extent of the evolutionary interconnectedness of organisms, with some even accepting universal common ancestry (ie Darwin’s great tree of life). Common ancestry in combination with common design can explain the similar features that arise in biology. The real question is whether common ancestry apart from common design- in other words, materialistic evolution- can do so. The evidence of biology increasingly demonstrates that it cannot.- Ibid page 142
And from one more pro-ID book:
Many assume that if common ancestry is true, then the only viable scientific position is Darwinian evolution- in which all organisms are descended from a common ancestor via random mutation and blind selection. Such an assumption is incorrect- Intelligent Design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry.– page 217 of “Intelligent Design 101”
That is just a sample of what the Intelligent Design leadership say about biological evolution- they are OK with it. And the following is from “Uncommon Descent”:
9] “Evolution” Proves that Intelligent Design is Wrong The word “evolution” can mean different things. The simplest meaning is one of natural history of the appearance of different living forms. A stronger meaning implies common descent, in its universal form (all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor) or in partial form (particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor). “Evolution” is often defined as descent with modifications, or simply as changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.
None of those definitions can prove ID wrong, because none are in any way incompatible with it.
ID is a theory about the cause of genetic information, not about the modalities or the natural history of its appearance, and is in no way incompatible with many well known patterns of limited modification of that information usually defined as “microevolution.” ID affirms that design is the cause, or at least a main cause, of complex biological information. A theory which would indeed be alternative to ID, and therefore could prove it wrong, is any empirically well-supported “causal theory” which excludes design; in other words any theory that fits well with the evidence and could explain the presence or emergence of complex biological information through chance, necessity, any mix of the two, or any other scenario which does not include design. However, once we rule out “just-so stories” and the like, we will see that there is not today, nor has there ever been, such a theory. Furthermore, the only empirically well-supported source of functionally specific, complex information is: intelligence. To sum it up: no definition of evolution is really incompatible with an ID scenario. Any causal theory of evolution which does not include design is obviously alternative to, and incompatible with, ID.
However, while many such theories have indeed been proposed, they are consistently wanting in the necessary degree of empirical support. By contrast, design is an empirically known source of the class of information – complex, specified information (CSI) — exhibited by complex biological systems.
They go on to say:
10] The Evidence for Common Descent is Incompatible with Intelligent Design ID is a theory about the cause of complex biological information. Common descent (CD) is a theory about the modalities of implementation of that information. They are two separate theories about two different aspects of the problem, totally independent and totally compatible. In other words, one can affirm CD and ID, CD and Darwinian Evolution, or ID and not CD. However, if one believes in Darwinian Evolution, CD is a necessary implication.
CD theory exists in two forms, universal CD and partial CD. No one can deny that there are evidences for the theory of CD (such as ERVs, homologies and so on). That’s probably the reason why many IDists do accept CD. Others do not agree that those evidences are really convincing, or suggest that they may reflect in part common design. But ID theory, proper, has nothing to do with all that. ID affirms that design is the key cause of complex biological information. The implementation of design can well be realized through common descent, that is through implementation of new information in existing biological beings. That can be done gradually or less gradually. All these are modalities of the implementation of information, and not causes of the information itself. ID theory is about causes.
And finally there is front loaded evolution (Mike Gene) and a prescribed evolutionary hypothesis (John Davison)- both are ID hypotheses pertaining to evolution.
Mutations are OK, differential reproduction is OK, horizontal gene transfer is OK. With Intelligent Design organisms are designed to evolve, ie they evolve by design. That is by “built-in responses to environmental cues” ala Dr Spetner’s “non-random evolution hypothesis” being the main process of adaptations.
As Dembski/ Wells said Intelligent design only has an issue with materialistic evolution- the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. (Also known as the blind watchmaker thesis)
Intelligent Design is OK with all individuals in a population generally having the same number and types of genes and that those genes give rise to an array of traits and characteristics that characterize that population. It is OK with mutations that may result in two or more slightly different molecular forms of a gene- alleles- that influence a trait in different ways and that individuals of a population vary in the details of a trait when they inherit different combinations of alleles. ID is OK with any allele that may become more or less common in the population relative to other kinds at a gene locus, or it may disappear. And ID is OK with allele frequencies changing as a result of mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection, that mutation alone produces new alleles and gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection shuffle existing alleles into, through, or out of populations. IOW ID is OK with biological evolution. As Dr Behe et al., make very clear, it just argues about the mechanisms- basically design/ telic vs spontaneous/ stochastic.
Now we are left with the only way Intelligent Design can be considered anti-evolution is if and only if the only definition of evolution matches the definition provided for materialistic evolution. However I cannot find any source that states that is the case.
So the bottom line is Intelligent Design says “evolved, sure”. The questions are “evolved from what?” and “how did it evolve?
Thanks Elizabeth, but that ain’t all- as I said there is more to germ cells than just DNA
heh.
It seems to do a fine enough job inside of computers…
Joe, you said “You do realize there is more to germ cells than just DNA?”
I said “There more to ANY cell than “just DNA”. Much, much more.
I’ve just laid a bet with the cat that you won’t be telling us what you mean, Joe.
So tell us what you mean, precisely and without equivocation, and Sapphire gets a chicken leg!”
So, if you want me to agree that there’s more than DNA in a cell, I agree.
But if you want to talk of something specific that’s important to whatever point it is you want to make about “stuff” being passed down via germ cells, then why not BE specific?
Wait, WHAT?
You still didn’t give us the mechanism by which your GAs get passed down Joe, or your specific location in cells where the GAs are located.
Are you now claiming your GAs are passed epigenetically? How does that work Joe, and where are your references?
You confusing levels, Joe – confusing the system and its properties with the parts of the system and their properties.
ETA: do listen to that lecture, Joe, I think you’d like it. Or I can also recommend the book.
Joe G,
Interesting how you think that statements about Intelligent Design hinge on your misunderstanding of evolution… almost as if they are competitor hypotheses… just like Meyer’s said that they were.
Tell me something Joe… in your version of science, what is the purpose of a hypothesis?
You see, in real science, the purpose of a hypothesis is to present a testable situation in which two competing ideas can be discriminated. So, either ID and evolution are competing ideas, in which case you’re whole point it wrong. Or they are not competing ideas, in which case, what’s the point of Intelligent Design…
IT DOESN’T DO ANYTHING.
In the decade that I’ve been watching ID, it hasn’t done a single thing, except cause trouble. There have been no great discoveries made through ID (no, Joe, CSI does not count). There have been no insights into the workings of Biological organisms or even digital organisms. There hasn’t even been a single paper published that unequivocally supports Intelligent Design.
You can rant and rave all you want, yet, you still cannot deny any of those facts… well, you can because you don’t understand reality very well.
BTW: Since you are here and refuse to talk over at ATBC anymore, how about those questions you keep running away from?
How is the CSI of an organism affected by changing from a zygote to a multicellular adult?
Any idea? No… I’m not surprised.
How is the CSI of an organism changed by the change of some cells to cancerous? Is it an increase or a decrease in CSI?
Any idea? No… I’m not surprised.
Which has more CSI 1000 random characters or the first 1000 characters of a Poe story? Why? Show your work.
Any idea? No… I’m not surprised.
What is the significant value for CSI to be designed vs. not-designed? Why? Is 501 bits designed and 499 not designed? Why? Do you realize, just how small 500 bits really is?
Any idea? No… I’m not surprised.
Show us how computer literate you are Joe. How many ASCII characters are represented by 500 bits? Can you do this very simple calculation?
No… I’m not surprised.
Elizabeth,
When you say morality “is” something by definition that is clearly at odds with any definition in any dictionary and clearly at odds with thousands of years of philsophical debate, then assert that because that morality “is’ what you have defined it to be you do not have to account for why anyone should choose that particular definition (principle) of morality over any other, you are equivocating, using definitional fiat, and stealing the concept. That’s just what it is. I don’t accuse people of those things unless they are doing those things.
The same is true of the terms “Darwinism” and “Genetic Algorithms”. A genetic algorithm that is intelligently designed to acquire various targets is not a Darwinian genetic algorithm. Sorry, it’s just not.
The genetic algorithms that humans use are targeted searches. The “fitness” of the generational outcomes is evaluated in correlation to the desired target. “Fecundity” of population elements in the GA is only a process to get to the target. Humans tweak the parameters of the GA to get it to produce outcomes in closer proximity to the desired target. GA’s mimic descent with modification and natural selection but they are not the same thing. You’re equivocating “genetic algorithm” with “Darwinism”. Nobody blindly programs a GA into a computer for no reason; nobody blindly populates it; nobody runs a GA without specific target parameters that serve as the fitness function.
Claiming that a fecundity “target” can build a circulatory sytem, or a nervous system, or an immune system by accident is like saying that with enough chance errors, the “Methinks I am a Weasel” program could eventually spit out functional blueprints for an Aircraft Carrier. If your GA is not targeting the aircraft carrier or something like it, good luck getting those blueprints.
As you see from his response, he doesn’t get it.
It goes right back to his not understanding basic science.
Do you accept Joe G’s claim that every cell has a magic GA built into it (but not its DNA) , complete with specified target? That these GAs were “front-loaded” then left unattended, and are responsible for all the biological variation we see in the world today?
Is that ID’s real position?
Hi Kevin- noce false accusation- care to back it up- that I have any misunderstandings about evolution?
BTW your position can’t muster a testable hypothesis.
Yup, you are right- that is just electrons. My bad
The egg membrane seems to be a crucial piece for passing on/ storing heritable traits- Origin of Vertebrate Skeleton– link to the paper is at the end of the article
As I said that is a possibility-
Strange how evotards ask for possible mechanisms of design and when they are presented with one all they can do is throw a hissy-fit (Elizabeth seems to be the exception)
Since you’ve evaded every last question about your magic GAs in cells, here’s two more for you to run from:
How do these cell-internal GAs physically interface with the nucleotides to cause genetic mutations?
Where do the GAs keep the information to know how these mutations will be affected and selected by their surrounding environment?
REPRODUCTION still isn’t a specific mechanism Joe.
I’ll take it you can’t answer the question
So you don’t have any evidence for these GAs, they’re just a possibility.
Got it.
Kevin:
Why would it be?
It is just in those cells and it is a loss of information as cancer is all about messing with specified regulatory paths.
There isn’t any CSI in random characters so Poe would have more.
Dembski tells you that in “No Free Lunch” And your position can’t account for 100 bits of SI.
You mean “can be represented by 500 bits” 500/ 7 = just over 71
Reproduction is a mechanism you moron. Your ignorance means nothing to me…
There isn’t any magic GAs only an infant would say something like that.
Would atoms and molecules even exist without information?
Well, I disagree, William but let’s leave that for one of the morality threads!
Be careful with terms, here William. I think you are in danger of being confused.
In a GA (which normally refers to the whole virtual environment and its population of virtual organisms) the GA designer designs
.
The “target” may be a solution (any solution) to a specific problem (good reception from an antenna, for instance, or a good diagnostic algorithm), or the whole thing may simply be designed explore what happens when you let a population of self-replicators loose in a model environment, with virtual predators, say, or virtual prey.
Sometimes, humans may “tweak” the parameters of the problem to make sure that the problem solved by the evolving virtual organisms is the one they want solving, and sometimes, I understand, they actually reach in and interfere with the evolving genomes to nudge them in what the designer guesses is a fruitful direction. But I find that a bit odd, myself, because the huge benefit of using a GA is that it can find solutions that you don’t think of. I certainly don’t do that with mine. I simply let the evolving population find an optimal solution.
Well, firstly, they don’t “mimic” “descent with modification”. They simply are systems of “descent with modification” albeit non-biological ones. And of course, normally a GA designer (e.g. me) will have a reason for designing the GA – but that isn’t at issue! God could well have had a reason for designing the earth and its population of starting critters, but that wouldn’t make their evolution non-Darwinian! Nor does it make mine.
I think you are confusing the design of the problem with the design of the solution. GA designers do not design the solution, just as evolutionists do not attribute to a designer the design of organisms. But GA designers do design the starting population (and we still don’t have a good theory about how the first living things got started although there are some promising leads, but we are talking about Darwininian evolution here, not OOL), and also the problem. And they design the problem by designing a fitness landscape within which the starting population evolves. The analog in ID would be that the ID designs the earth, with its seas, and mountains, and atmosphere. Which is fine, but that’s not the usual ID argument.
And of course, in many GAs, as in real life (as proposed), the evolving population itself becomes part of the fitness landscape, certainly in competitive GAs (mine are usually competitive).
So I’m still failing to see where the GA is “non-Darwinian”. I’m wondering whether you have misunderstood the principle of GAs.
No, the weasel program is a special case of a GA, in which (because it was a throwaway thing designed to make a simple point, which it does) the unique solution is coterminous with the problem. The sole problem is: “spell out “methinks it is like a weasel” and the sole solution is “”methinks it is like a weasel”.
In actual practical GAs, and in biology, the problem space is large, and the solution space vast; moreoever there are multiple solutions to every problem, and the problem space itself changes in response to the current population of solutions. So if you are basing your understanding of “Darwinian” GAs on Weasel, that is probably where you are going wrong 🙂
for example please tell us how many mutations and to what genes produced an upright biped from a knuckle-walker?
How many mutations and to what genes caused an engulfed prokaryote to “evolve” into mitochondria?
And we are STILL waiting…
Guys, how to put this….
It’s an interesting thread, for which thanks to Joe, but for goodness’ sake would everyone chill – don’t insult other posters, and if you are insulted, just leave the thing lying on the sidewalk. I may clear it up, or I may find I have better things to do.
Joe, you are not only the very welcome contributor of this thread, but you are also a major contributor to the guano in guano. Please desist. And others, cut the guy some slack.
Cheers
Lizzie
PS: if the worst comes to the worst I may temporarily lock the thread.
*growl*
Elizabeth,
As I said earlier the GAs I am talking about are exemplified in that SciAm article “Evolving Inventions”
http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/Evolution/Koza/
Just click on the page numbers to read it
What on Earth organisms have to do?
Yes Elizabeth- I just need to take a break and not get caught up in the back-n-forth BS. My bad- I started out OK but then got attacked and went on the warpath.
IOW I will just pop in 2-3 times a day and answer the posts that need answering and leave the rest.
BTW I have a new post submitted….
Hi Geoxus!
They have to survive and reproduce, and that takes quite a bit, don’t ya think?
I listened to it- well 20 minutes worth- I will finish it later
Well, that’s what I’m talking about too, as far as I can tell from a quick glance. But William says he’s not talking about Darwinian GAs. Those are Darwinian (it actually says so).
So my question to you is: does this mean that you agree that Darwinian evolution works, as long as it starts with a reproducting population and an environment to evolve to adapt to?
And to William: Joe and I seem to mean the same thing. So what is non-Darwinian about the GA in Joe’s link?
(I’ll have to check the whole thing later, but a cursory skim seems to confirm that it’s a perfectly normal Darwinian GA).
I address questions better tan evos do.
Strange, that…
There isn’t any such thing as a darwinian GA- that is an oxymoron if there ever was one.
Darwinian evolution does not have a goal and all of those GAs have a specific goal
So the target of the GA is “survival of the fitest”? Front-load-tastic
Fishing I see. Bet you don’t catch anything.
Genomic survival in a dynamc environment.
Non-sequitur
Oh, well…
It would be good to have an ID science proponent with the persistence and indefatigability of Joe (and he has to keep a lot of balls in the air, even if he throws them up himself to start with), but with the ability and will actually to answer relevant questions, and take discussions forward without badmouthing.
I suspect though, that, that we’d still be in the same place at the end.
I shall leave fellow TSZers to return to the philosophising, whist I explain to the cat why she won’t be getting a chicken leg, thanks to the lack of balls of ID proponents!
I know they do that, but I didn’t know the have to do that… are we at last peeking into the mind of the designer?
So, as the goal of the GA is to maximise fitness, whatever specific “solutions” it finds wouldn’t matter at all… which is pretty much like natural selection, isn’t it?
No, it’s your problem that the cat won’t get the leg- I answered your question
You – this comment will get guanoed, but I must say I’m absolutely delighted you’ve been stupid enough to memorialize this. I’m amazed Dembski, Wells, etc haven’t called you up to tell you to ‘fuck off’. Its absolutely transparent that you have nothing, are making it up as you go along and refuse to engage points. Gish Gallop was spot on. As long as ID has demented cheerleaders like you, it wont even be viable in the culture wars, the only venue where it’s had any success.
Fitness is a nonsensical term and that isn’t what the GA does. Also genetic drift is more prevelant tahn NS, which is just a result anyway.
But yes I am trying to think how the designer would have done it.
How so? The target of evolution is surviving and reproducing organisms.
Why are you asking me? No physicist or chemist makes any such claims about “information.”
Information pushing atoms and molecules around is an ID/creationist assertion. That is your responsibility to demonstrate; but you won’t because you can’t.
You really don’t have a clue do you.
Really? Ever heard of Max Planck?
The great scientist Max Planck said the following during his Nobel Prize acceptance speech:
And Mike- your position never supports anything…
Reference please
This post contains the answer that damitall said I never provided…
Think whatever you want about “fitness”, you said organisms have to survive and reproduce, the point remains the same. So far, the only apparent difference between your GAs and NS is that the GAs “work” and NS “doesn’t work”.
Yes, there is more molecular evolution due GD, though I don’t see how is that relevant. And yes, NS is a result. The causality lies in the interaction between the inheritable characters and the environment.
1. What is evolution?
Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. These changes are produced at the genetic level as organisms’ genes mutate and/or recombine in different ways during reproduction and are passed on to future generations. Sometimes, individuals inherit new characteristics that give them a survival and reproductive advantage in their local environments; these characteristics tend to increase in frequency in the population, while those that are disadvantageous decrease in frequency. This process of differential survival and reproduction is known as natural selection. Non-genetic changes that occur during an organism’s life span, such as increases in muscle mass due to exercise and diet, cannot be passed on to the next generation and are not examples of evolution.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html
I happen to know a great deal about Max Planck.
I also happen to know that you know absolutely nothing about Max Planck.
Copy/paste isn’t working for you.