I’ve wanted to start this discussion for several weeks, but wasn’t sure how to present Wagner’s argument. Fortunately Piotr has saved me the trouble with a post at UD.
Piotr February 24, 2015 at 1:35 pm
Gpuccio,Do you mind if I begin with a simple illustrative example? Let’s consider all five-letter alphabetic strings (AAAAA, QWERT, HGROF, etc.). By convention, a string will be “functional” if it’s a meaningful English word (BREAD, WATER, GLASS, etc.). Functionality is therefore not a formal property of the string but something dictated by the environment. There are 26^5 = 11881376 (almost 12 million) possible five-letter strings. The number of five-letter words in English (excluding proper nouns and extremely rare, dialectal or archaic words) is about 6000, so the probability that any randomly generated string is functional is about 0.0005.
Any five-letter string S can produce 5×25 = 125 “mutants” differing from S by exactly one letter. If you represent the sequence space as a five-dimensional hypercube (26x26x26x26x26), a mutation can be defined as a translation along any of the five axes.
It would appear that the odds of finding a functional mutant for a given string should be about 125×0.0005 = 1/16 on the average. In fact, however, it depends where you start. If S is functional, the existence of at least one functional mutant is almost guaranteed (close to 90%). For most English words there are more than one functional mutants. For example, from SNARE wer get {SCARE, SHARE, SPARE, STARE, SNORE, SNAKE, SNARK…}. Though some functional sequences are isolated or form small clusters in the sequence space, most of them are members of one huge, quite densely interconnected network. You can get from one to another in just a few steps (often in more than one way), which is of course what Lewis Carroll’s “word ladder” puzzle is about:
FLOUR > FLOOR > FLOOD > BLOOD > BROOD > BROAD > BREAD
You can ponder the example for a moment; I’ll return to it later.
The whole thread is worth a look.
I might add that there is a rather crude GA at http://itatsi.com that does something not entirely unlike a word ladder.
“Where does information come from?” was the subject of Lizzie Liddle’s first post on this blog. I wonder who has an explanation for the the appearance of information? Does phoodoo?
If two people are arguing about information, there will be at least three different meanings of “information” involved in the argument.
When a creationist argues about information, there will be as many meanings of the term as will be required to avoid conceding that a natural processs either has, or can make, enough information to challenge the preconcieved conclusion that information has to be “put there” by intelligent design.
In particular, one will never ever encounter an IDcreationist define new information. How many times have we heard the claim “evolution can’t create new information”. It comes in other forms too; “evolution can’t create new genes”, “evolution can’t create new complex bodyplans”. Any and all creative ability of evolution is staunchly denied.
They will invariably always retort that the information was already there to begin with, it was front-loaded or whatever, so evolution can at best only modify “already existing [information/genes/bodyplans/levels of organized information complexity]”, and even this is asserted to be borderline miraculous. To them, most of the time, evolution must be destroying the miraculously designed [information/genes/bodyplans/levels of organized information complexity]. So the ID view becomes: The information was there from the beginning, put into it by a designer. Evolution mostly destroys and degrades this information, but once in a very rare situation evolution can slightly modify it (as long as the resulting organism remains “within kind”). Kind is also never defined, except at a superficial level: Bacteria are still bacteria, it’s still a cat-kind, or a dog-kind.
Everything the evolutionist says will be weighed against the presupposed ID conclusion: Evolution MUST be false. IDcreationists have no interest in objective truth, instead they’re all about doctrinal and scriptural truth. They think their religion is the truth, so there’s no need to go searching for what is really true, they think they already know.
If it is not in “the book”, it isn’t true by definition.
Indeed. Look what it’s done to you!
Jesus!
Jesus put it there!
How’s that working out for you?
Nice strawman you’ve built. Perhaps you can give an example of someone doing what you say? If not, consider retracting those claims as JESUS DOES NOT WANT LIARS IN HEAVEN!
look, phoodoo, if you want to make converts for your religion then simply pointing out “you can’t explain X” is not going to cut it as neither can you explain X!
Well, for certain values of “explain” anyway. You can “explain” anything with “Jesus” as the answer.
No, far better if you were to talk about Jesus and the salvation he brings etc. You know, a proper evangelical attempt. As at least that has a slim chance of working, unlike your current “Jesus did it” approach.
Ask KF?
I still deny that “information” is a useful metaphor when dealing with genomes.
Reason number one: We don’t have a dictionary for genomic elements. We cannot describe why a particular sequence folds in a particular way. We can, with great effort, predict folds, but not with perfect accuracy. We cannot even begin to predict the effect of minor variations of folds.
The situation is worse with regulatory elements. We don’t even know where some of them are, and could not begin to design a useful regulatory element.
All this leads to a conclusion that we can’t associate novel sequences with meaning. We cannot associate sequence length with meaning We cannot associate copy or transmission errors with meaning.
So we are pretty much hosed with regard to any useful calculation of information content. Shannon information doesn’t concern itself with meaning, so that’s a non-starter.
Chemistry simply isn’t commensurate with computer code. Avida and Weasel and such can probe the mathematics of evolution, but cannot be used to argue whether or not biological evolution works. At best, they can show that Behe’s and Dembski’s arguments are conceptually flawed. It is always possible that we could run into a true Behe Edge, but it wouldn’t be for any of the reasons he has presented so far.
Phoodoo asked me a question, but has “religiously” avoided dealing with my answer. The question was what does word ladder have to do with biological evolution. The answer is it exposes the logical flaws in Behe’s and Dembski’s reasoning.
It isn’t necessary for word ladder to model biology. it models the ID argument.
It’s always amused me that they say that evolution cannot add “information”. Yet given that they cannot measure “information” they are unable to say after a given event (i.e. Lenski citrate) if the information has increased, decreased or stayed the same.
Yet somehow they *know* it has not increased. But can’t say what it’s value is before, during or after such an event.
I guess they just *know* in the same way they just *know* about objective morality – we’re expected to take their word for it.
One wonders why KF has never proven his point by calculating the FIASCO before and after Citrate city. Well, I don’t actually wonder, I’ve just shown why he cannot and never will be able to.
phoodoo,
phoodoo, I’m surprised (NOT!) that you are afraid to answer my questions. I’m also surprised (NOT!) that a bunch of your fellow IDiot-creationists haven’t stepped out of the UD sanctuary and jumped in to answer them. I thought for sure (NOT!) that you and your fellow cultists would have no fear of my questions and no problem answering them with lots of sciency details that you derived from your extensive ID-creationist methodology and research. After all, you brave geniuses (NOT!) have always shown (NOT!) that no questions are too challenging for you. I can only assume (NOT!) that you and the other IDCs are real busy (NOT!) with your sciency research (NOT!) and will get around to answering my questions (NOT!) when you have more time.
phoodoo,
WilliamJM @ UD notes
Another William, William Dembski at UD also as already mentioned in this thread, writes scientific papers as if evolution as generally accepted is true.
So you are not only fighting against the evilutionists here but at UD also!
WJM adds
I can imagine him sitting in his armchair as “evolutionary processes” pass by on a conveyor belt. All discovered by people doing actual real work.
“yep, by design” as each passes by, ticking a box.
The smallest of the smallest gaps. I wonder what a random distribution that was in fact designed would look like….
I can imagine him in his armchair with a geiger counter. As each click is produced he mutters “prove that was not designed! Go on, you simply can’t! Don’t abscond with my clicks into the non-designed camp!”
Take it! Honestly, if that’s the gap you want to crawl up into William, take it! Own it!
Also, I’ve got a teapot I’d like to sell you…
Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Bat,
How I wonder what you’re at:
Up above the world you fly
Like a tea pot in the sky
Adapted from a possibly recognizable poem by a possibly recognizable author.
OM quoting William Murray at Uncommon Descent:
@ William Murray,
Indeed! Let some ID advocate give us a “design” hypothesis to test and we’ll check it out. Or, how about this? Why does not some ID advocate do some hypothesis testing. That does require your first hypothesis to be formulated. As yet, remember, there is no testable hypothesis regarding “Intelligent Design”.
Alan Fox,
As of yet, there is no theory of evolution.
Murray:
True enough. The problem is that, to do science, you have to actually have to deal with the specific causes that demonstrably fit into that category. Only animal causes fit into the intelligent design category, human causes especially.
Oh I see, the problem is that ID is about generalities and not specifics.
That is why it isn’t science, or anything else that produces actual results. That is, it isn’t true in practice.
Likewise, unless Murray can demonstrate any evolutionary process to be by design, he cannot rule out the possibility that such processes are by chance and/or natural law.
Oh, what an impasse. What can we do, except look for the patterns normally expected from inheritance with modification, versus the patterns expected from the one known major set of designers on earth, humans? Gee, I wonder what the results would be….
Glen Davidson
Lemme guess, because Denis Noble says so! Right?
Oh, I see now that you’re just making a childish retort. Nevermind then.
I recall Lizzie commending the views of Denis Noble as expressed in this video lecture.
Here’s one thread.
ETA:
This is the thread I was thinking of.
Likewise, unless Murray can demonstrate any evolutionary process to be by design
GlenDavidson,
Basset hounds evolved to hunt rabbits. They were by design.
Intelligent design is proven.
Darwinian evolution however has no such documentation.
Rumraket,
Why would pointing out the obvious lack of a coherent theory of evolution be childish?
That’s a strange thing for you to think.
Oh the equivocation!
Basset hounds are an example of artificial selection by dog breeders. The design is achieved by selection; exactly the same process as in nature where the environment is the designer. Some might argue that dog breeders display the same level of intelligence as the environment but that is harsh, in my view. 🙂
Alan Fox,
What do you mean, the same as in nature? A basset hound isn’t part of nature?
I don’t think Alan understands what equivocate means.
A basset hound is real. And selection is a real process. The distinction between natural selection and artificial selection is, well, artificial. It’s essentially the same process.
I used it to mean “playing with definitions” which is what you appear to be doing with “design”.
Because you know there is a coherent theory of evolution, you just dislike it’s implications and think it’s false.
Notice how thinking it’s false and disliking it’s implications is not the same as it not actually existing.
Now stop being childish.
phoodoo,
God, you’re as bad as Gallien! You too have about 2 points, easily refuted and endlessly repeated. The theory of evolution is fundamentally that generational change (imperfect replication and LGT) and competition between variant lineages lead to biological change. You knew that, of course.
Phoodoo with his infamous “Liz was so ashamed she abandon her own blog” (paraphrase) line. Someone should be so ashamed, but isn’t self aware enough. Isn’t that right, Phoodoo?
You’re so bad at logic and not being a really poor person I sometimes think you might be a parody.
Yes, and that’s what’s so childish and silly about it.
At a certain level I can respect the contrarian position, that some one finds it hard to swallow evolution (even if ultimately for bad reasons). I can respect it when arguments are made to get at whether the evidence for the theory is good enough, I can understand being curious about whether developments in the field contradict previous ideas. I can even respect that some people feel at a sort of intuitive level that the complexity of living organisms cries out for a good explanation, and having a hard time understanding how a fundamentally stochastic process can produce it.
While I disagree with all those things, I can both understand and respect that some people want to debate it. Of course at some point, when the mechanisms have been explained and the evidence for them shown, and they still insist it’s not enough, I start to lose some of that respect. But at least on the face of it, wanting to peer deeper into the subject and see if it holds water is in no way a bad attitude.
Where I lose all respect for them is when they start doing silly stuff like insisting the theory of evolution doesn’t even exist. I don’t get that, I don’t see what it’s supposed to accomplish, particular when they know it’s false. Do they really imagine some undecided 3rd party one comes to a thread like this, sees them make that claim, and then think it’s true, when it is so trivially easy to show is false?
It’s sort of on the same level as the creationists who deny that birds eat moths and butterflies. It has stopped being rational (to the little extent it was) and simply becomes some weird psychoemotional denial. Everything even remotely associated with evolutionary biology must be attacked and denied, no matter how simple and obvious.
Or “natural selection doesn’t work, it cannot fix beneficial alleles”. Why would anyone go there? This is so utterly, trivially and obviously false I cannot imagine a thinking person ever become convinced of such a claim if they are not already deeply emotionally and psychologically vetted to the conclusion that evolution is false.
An example of a similar argument, also advanced against all reason by phoodoo et al. is “natural selection is a tautology”. Even if that were true, natural selection would still be a concrete reality that happens. What the hell is this insanely stupid claim even supposed to achieve?
Why don’t you IDcreationists do yourself a favor and stop making these fucking stupid statements? Deadly serious question, why do you have to descend so far down the rabbit hole of evolution denialism you start objecting to the simplest and most obvious things, simply because they have to do with evolutionary biology? It’s like the whole thing bothers and scares you so much you feel you must resist it’s claims and influence at every level, no matter whether it is even rational to do so.
Alan Fox,
How is that playing with definitions Alan? You agree the basset hound is designed right? And you also agree that its part of nature right? So when we see evolution in action, the only examples we can document have been designed right?
Basset hounds would never survive without human intrevention.
Populations of feral dogs morph into generic dogs somewhat like wild African dogs in shape and color.
Why is “wild type” both an important distinction and one that is relatively easy to make?
Yes, we can “design” organisms, but the results are manifestly unlike those that have not been so “designed.”
Glen Davidson
I have no problem with the statement that basset hounds are designed. After all, the evolutionary process is the most powerful designer we have ever observed. The fact that part of the selection landscape for basset hounds included emotional desires by human organisms is at bottom not different from any other kind of sexual selection, or selection for mimicry or camouflage or interspecies symbiosis.
So basset hounds could not survive “in the wild”. Probably not, and the E coli in your gut couldn’t survive in desert sand, or inside a hydrothermal vent. The fact that an organism has adapted to be dependent on another isn’t evidence or an argument that it didn’t or couldn’t evolve.
It’s different in one sense. Human selected populations are often self-sterile. Corn (maize), basset hounds and many other highly selected populations, would die off in one or two generations without human intervention.
There are lots of “natural” symbiotic relationships, but having survived the sieve of natural selection, they are robust. But natural doesn’t guarantee robustness. Lots of extinctions occur due to invasive preditors.
Allan Miller,
How can competition lead to biological change? That simply not true Allan. Its only the replications imperfections or gene transferring, that is doing any changes.
Competition only changes population levels, it does nothing to change an organism biologically. That is one of the uses of terminology evolutionists use to mask the reality of what they are saying, that accidents cause all of the functional greatness we see in nature.
Competetion changes populations. Change in populations is what evolution is about.
petrushka,
Change in population is not change in biological function.
It acts as a filter on variation, forcing the fixation of certain phenotypes that might otherwise be lost to drift.
So what you mean by “change biologically” is how does variation originate in the gene pool in the first place. Mutation, genetic recombination and horizontal gene transfer.
This newly arised variation is then what is being forced to fixation through selection. Competition is natural seleciton.
Why do you pretend to be flabbergasted about these totally basic ideas?
phoodoo: That is one of the uses of terminology evolutionists use to mask the reality of what they are saying, that accidents cause all of the functional greatness we see in nature.
It’s weird because here I sit, an evolutionist, and explicitly state that mutation, genetic recombination and horizontal gene transfer (all of which are stochastic events, or what you refer to as “accidents”) is the originating sources of variation.
So nothing is being “masked”.
Phoodoo, why do you keep pretending there’s something wrong with these basic concepts? You know there isn’t. Go produce real arguments instead of this childish psychoemotional need to stamp your feet at every idea associated with evolutionary biology.
That makes no sense. Function is what is changing.
Rumraket,
So first, you are counting mutation, genetic recombination and horizontal gene transfer as three separate things correct?
Now in your theory, is anything else allowed to cause functional change, or is that it, nothing else, right? If its anything else, your theory is wrong, correct?
phoodoo, compared to a wolf, is there ‘new information’ in a Basset Hound?
Creodont2,
Its different information presumably, who knows if it is new.
Creodont2,
So, do you agree that a Basset Hound is intelligently designed?
phoodoo,
How did the “different information” get into the Basset Hound? Or, to put it another way, where did the “different information” come from? Or, to put it another way, what produced the “different information”?
Creodont2,
Every animal that is alive has different information than another animal, or they would be the same animal. So each wolf also has different information from another wolf.
Sex is one answer.
Creodont2,
Every animal that is alive has different information than another animal, or they would be the same animal. So each wolf also has different information from another wolf.
Sex is one answer.
Creodont2,
Phoodoo, you are clueless. You and Joe Gallien are wrong about *everything*.
“Every animal that is alive has different information than another animal, or they would be the same animal.”
No, them being two different animals in two different places with different personal histories makes them different. Duh!
http://www.genome.gov/25020028
“The term cloning describes a number of different processes that can be used to produce genetically identical copies of a biological entity. The copied material, which has the same genetic makeup as the original, is referred to as a clone.”
phoodoo,
In the case of Basset Hounds, only if “intelligently designed” is defined as some humans choosing (but not necessarily always) which particular dogs breed (have offspring) with other particular dogs.
Microbes are all clones. They may or may not be identical after replicating, but differences will be due to copy errors. The acquisition of new abilities will be due to copy errors.
Lensky started with a single cell and wound up with innumerable variants.
Which Darwin noted, is the same biology as natural selection.