asks Winston Ewert at UD. For those of us who can’t post there, this thread is for us to respond here. Winston himself is as ever, cordially invited to join us, as are any UD commenters.
What is the probability of a structure like the bacterial flagellum evolving under Darwinian processes? This is the question on which the entire debate over Darwinian evolution turns. If the bacterial flagellum’s evolution is absurdly improbable, than Darwinism is false. On the other hand, if the flagellum is reasonably probable than Darwinism looks like a perfectly plausible explanation for life.
Dembski’s development of specified complexity depends on having established that the probability of structures like the bacterial flagellum is absurdly low under Darwinian mechanisms. Specified complexity provides the justification for rejecting Darwinian evolution on the basis of the absurdly low probability. It does nothing to help establish the low probability. Anyone arguing the Darwinian evolution has a low probability of success because of CSI has put the cart before the horse. You have to show that the probability of the bacterial flagellum is low before applying CSI to show that Darwinism is a bad explanation.
So what is the probability of a bacterial flagellum under Darwinian mechanisms? Obviously, we can’t expect to know the exact probability, but can we at least determine whether or not its absurdly improbable? That’s the question on which the whole debate rests. It seems that any arguments over Darwinism should be focused on arguments about this probability. It is the key to the whole discussion.
Intelligent design proponents have long offered a number of arguments attempting to show that Darwinian evolution accords a low probability to structures such as the bacterial flagellum. Darwin’s Black Box argues that irreducible complexity is highly improbable to evolve. The Edge of Evolution argues that non-trivial constructive mutations are too improbable for Darwinian evolution. Doug Axe’s protein work argues that protein evolution is too improbable. The fact is, almost every work by intelligent design proponents has been directed towards arguing that Darwinian evolution is too improbable to work. There is no mystery about why we intelligent design proponents think that evolution is improbable.
Intelligent design critics are going to dispute all of these arguments I mention. That’s fine. But dispute those arguments. Don’t act as though we’ve never given explanations for why we think that Darwinism is an improbable account of the complexity of life. Don’t attack specified complexity for not showing that Darwinism is improbable. That was never the intent of specified complexity. It is the intent of a host of other arguments put forward by intelligent design proponents.
Arguing over who has the burden of proof might be ok if there were no arguments on the table attempting to establish that question. But there are arguments on the table. There is no need to fall back on trying to shift the burden of proof onto someone else. Its a dubious tactic at the best of times, and totally pointless in the face of the arguments developed by intelligent design proponents.
So please, discuss the actual arguments put forward about the probabilities.
Well they do for a more darwinian cause. They do in order to survive.
I do not understand how darwinists usually invoke the “evil argument” against ID when they live in a so nive world where everybody is honest trying to follow the “golden rule”.
No, it doesn’t.
No, obviously not. Others have said as much in regards to evolution. . I was talking about the general observation that complexity increased due to the action of natural laws. The second law doesnt address complexity. It concerns entropy which is only vaguely connected to entropy. Entropy can only decrease in an open system. Complexity can increase in an open or closed system ( as Granville Sewell pointed out)
I know that “entropy” is often translated as “disorder” but that’s a very misleading translation.
Many low-entropy systems (a tornado, for example) look far less “ordered” in the plain-English sense than high-entropy systems (e.g. still air).
Also, disordered, “random” states are more complex.
And the only matter that has that ability is life or life related like RNA.
Cristals are not self replicating and would not say they are more complex than the molecules in a non cristaline form. Or maybe better may you please give a definition of “complexity”?
No, physics and chemistry shows that systems tend to the equilibrium and a self repliator tends to avoid the equilibrium.
Off course scientist has only the immagination of a first replicator. And they do because their believes needs a natural self replicator.
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/
http://www.englandlab.com/uploads/7/8/0/3/7803054/2013jcpsrep.pdf
shrug.
No. It shows that systems without energy input tend towards equilibrum. Once you have energy input, that energy drives increases in complexity.
Ah, “fundy SLoT”. It would of course stop acorns from becoming mighty oaks, but no-one wants to think about that.
Evolution itself is an example of populations moving towards equilibrium.
Which is very obvious if you plot fitness over time, then change the environment.
If that theories are compatible with the real world, why nobody stated a “Lenski experiment” with self replicating RNA? Just add energy!
About those grants….
Less ordered often implies more complex.
The problem with this kind of argument, is that we really do not have sufficiently clear definitions of “ordered” or of “complex”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegelman_Monster
petrushka,
+1
No the problem is to trying to change the reality. Everything but life tend to the equilibrium. To keep your house standing up, you need to make work, the stars will keep running until there mass will fade out. The only system that stays away fron equilibrium are living forms, and they perform work to stay in that way. When they do not they tend to the equilibrium and we call them dead.
Blas,
Oh, bloody hell! Again we’re back to the OoL! Evolution does not explain the OoL. This is not the first time this has been stated, Blas. And probably not the last. The OoL is unsolved.
Evolution requires replication. It is not the explanation for replication – though it is a very good explanation for ‘better replication’, attuned to environmental circumstances.
Good question. Somebody has to pay of course.
Someone has – look up David Bartel
Life is no exception. Everything, the entire universe, tends towards equilibrium. It’s just that where energy gradients exist, it can drive an increase in complexity. Notice how life requires energy to grow and reproduce. But life is not the only complex phenomenon that requires energy flows to sustain it.
No. A simple example is a tornado. A tornado is a non-equilibrium system in a liquid or gas, driven by an energy flow. It can only exist in an energy gradient, just like life. As long as the right kind of gradient exists and heat flows into the cool, the tornado will persist. Should something disrupt this gradient, or change the steepness of the difference between hot and cold, the tornado will dissipate.
Omagain asked:
I responded:
Rumraket interjects with:
Note: the conversation up to this point between Omagain and I is about the predictive power of Darwinism, defined and reiterated as distinct from evolution & science as the metaphysical position that non-intelligent, non-teleological forces/mechanisms are sufficient to explain life and successfully accomplish all evolutionary achievements.
I said that Liz agreed with me that Darwinism cannot make predictions. Liz responds:
Liz said previously:
If Darwinism has no metric by which to show what it can and cannot produce, it certainly cannot make meaningful predictions.
Sorry petrushka, you have to google it better, that it is not self replication it uses the RNA replicase of the bacteriophage. And interesting is that on the contrary of what ToE and Lizzie believe the “darwinian evolution” of that RNA led not more complexe structure but always shorter RNAs until they fit the binding site of the replicase.
OMagain -1
Then why are there tornados and hurricanes?
The same tornado tends to disrupt the gradient. The tornado do not keep themselve out of the equilibrium making work.
No Allan this is not about OOL, this is about the statement of Lizzie and NR that phisics laws tend to make more complex structures.
Not unless Liz can tell me how something without even a metric for determining what it can or cannot do can produce a meaningful prediction.
You keep getting this wrong. Noone assumes this metaphysical position you keep blathering about. It’s just that we don’t have a method for falsifying the claim that invisible dragons are guiding all the entities in nature. It is literally unfalsifiable, because it is untestable. Whatever happens can be ad-hoc rationalized to fit. So we stay away from making such metaphysical pronouncements beceause they’re veridically useless. They help explain nothing. That also means there’s no rational justification for believing in them in the first place.
X happens, oh I guess it was guided to do that. Y happens, now that was guided to happen instead. Z now happens, well I guess that was then guided to happen too. No concievable observation could not be rationalized to have been somehow planned or guided into place in this fashion.
What use is this kind of ad-hoc reasoning really then?
We’d be a lot more impressed if you could start giving concrete, falsifiable, quantitative predictions. Give actual hard numbers we can go directly out and test.
Hello, we have an evolutionary model. It makes quite a number of well-defined predictions. For example, no rabbits in the precambrian is a famous and really simple one.
There’s thes things called population genetics and comparative genetics. It predicts twin nested hierarchies. Taken together you can make all sorts of quantitative predictions about patterns of genetics between genes and species of organisms. You might have heard about it.
Give me an example of what you mean when you refer to “a metric for determining what [something] can and can’t do”.
I honestly think William, that the problem is that you simply do not know enough about quantitative hypothesis testing to see the problem!
But let me put that aside for one moment, and tell me what you mean by this “metric”.
And they do in the context of energy and material gradients.
Living things do not self-replicate in the absence of required media. Parasites do not self-replicate without hosts.
Evolution toward simpler does not contradict anything Lizzie said. Whether things evolve toward simpler or more complex depends on the environment and what it rewards. Competition tends to reward increasing complexity.
About those grants?
Can you give an example of such a prediction that would be meaningful?
For instance, would a meaningful prediction be “niches are filled” or “Turtles will evolve during the timeframe X to Z”?
What sort of prediction would be meaningful to you William?
Yes, therefore ID. How tedious.
Let’s not forget, Darwinism did predict:
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html
ID?
And of course Angraecum sesquipedale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angraecum_sesquipedale
ID?
I’m not talking about your “evolutionary model”. Your “evolutionary model” is not incompatible with ID.
I’m talking about the material metaphysical assumptions that are entailed by the term “Darwinism”, specifically that non-teleological and non-intelligent mechanisms/causes are categorically sufficient in terms of explanations. Unless you can provide a metric by which your mechanisms and causes can be vetted as not requiring teleological/intelligent input, your evolutionary model cannot be show to be “Darwinian” in nature – meaning, Darwinian processes sufficient as explanations.
Liz has agreed that there is no such metric. She has stated that evolutionary processes cannot be vetted either Darwinian-sufficient nor as requiring ID. Therefore, Darwinism (the metaphysical claim) cannot predict anything. Evolutionary theory might predict all sorts of things, but those things cannot be vetted as the results of Darwinism.
No, it didn’t. You’re conflating Darwinism with evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory predicts all sorts of things. Without a probability metric, Darwinism can’t predict anything.
Blas,
??? The comment to which I replied was specifically about the first replicator.
No matter. Complexity is not an inevitable result of evolution, but it is a possible one. If a gene duplicates, and one copy adopts a different function, then that is more complex, surely? If an extra turn of an alpha helix is generated within an existing protein, same again, surely? It’s not physical ‘law’ that’s doing that, it’s ultimately down to replication (fuelled by energy: tapping into, not violating, the 2LoT).
Do you know how flu vaccines are made before the flu season even starts?
William J. Murray,
Apart from that being untrue, what is it about Darwinism that needs a ‘probability metric’ where evolutionary theory can just get away with ‘predicting all sorts of things’?
So you’re arguing entirely against a strawman that religious conservatives have made up. Glad we got that settled.
You are confusing the claim that a specific natural model of a phenomenon is sufficient (no model is ever sufficient) with the assumption that the phenomenon has natural causes.
Compare: the vase landing on floor does not sufficiently explain the crack pattern with: I assume that natural causes were responsible for smashing the vase.
May I welcome you formally to the fold, William? 🙂
Are the posited mechanisms sufficient if teleological influence is allowed?
petrushka you have to revise your concept of “self” replicating. It means that himself replicates. It has nothing to do with the requiered media. Parasites selfreplicate, they do not need other requirement than to be inside the host. There are RNAs that self replicate. A molecule of RNA made copies of itself with the only requirement of the presence of activated nucleotides. In your example RNA do not self replicates, is the polimerase the catalizes the reaction not the RNA.
Off course ToE predicts everything and his contrary. Lizzie said:
“A population of individuals that self-replicate with variation will tend to end up with more complex individuals over time, because there are more ways in which a think can be complex than simple, and unless complexity is disadvantageous, it will tend to accumulate.”
Your cite falsify that statement. Is wrong, the RNA under “darwinian evolution”, according to Wiki, becomes shorter ( I hope everybody, also darwinists will agree that shorter is less complex) over time.
If you call complexity a heated pot with warmer water in the top and less warm water in the bottom, you are right.
Well, just name or identify the intelligent agency that performs the replication.
An spiegleman’s monster only needs the presence of an enzyme. Far less demanding than a living host.
But hey, we stipulate that we don’t know how life originated.
The only question is whether you prefer to go through life ignorant, or whether you are curious about how things work.
Your life, your call.
Science has investigated gravity for 400 years without cracking it, but not many people — not even many theists — assert it is directed at the whim of angels. The origin of life could remain a mystery. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen through regular chemistry. or that the question isn’t worth pursuing.
One thing about IDists, they seem not to get skeptical thought at all. They just don’t get that our view is simply open, not something claimed to be “sufficient” to anything except where causes are actually found to be, apparently, sufficient to explain the effect. That we have these observable causes in evolution that pretty much seem to account for anything for which we have a fair amount of evidence thus means that we’re largely satisfied that observable causes account for evolution. We wouldn’t dare to say that nothing else could have affected evolution, we just don’t see any reason or excuse to say even that a large unknown cause for life’s structure and function must exist, let alone suppose that we can identify a large unknown cause as being “intelligent.”
They have their “sufficient cause,” largely because, apparently, someone(s) invented an intelligent fiction that is defined as a “sufficient cause.” Not only does that not truly count as a sufficient cause, but it doesn’t properly suggest that we have done anything comparable to what they have done, which would be to claim to have come up with a universal “sufficient cause” for anything, including evolution.
Science is open, assumptions can be questioned (not from just any fictional standpoint, understand), new things might come along to change matters, we’re simply not claiming to know all, just what is currently knowable (or not even that, but at least the basics, for many individuals).
So UD runs article after article about how absurd it is for us to think that we “know” that supernatural or “non-material” causes didn’t affect evolution. Yes, it is absurd, only we don’t think that (some do, but they’re not being very scientific). Matters are open for us, not closed, as it is for many with the theistic viewpoint–seemingly nearly all at UD. I know that it’s easier to attack strawmen, as they do, but evidently it isn’t just that, either, they seem really quite unable to grasp that science is actually about openness, not at all about the causally closed world of the IDist/creationist that they project onto science.
But they need that as an excuse not to really open up to science and to reasonable possibilities, not that it’s all that easy to do anyhow. What is clear is that their whole closed world is destined to remain closed for most of them, facilitated all the more so by assuming that science (atheistic materialism, or whatever other fiction they come up, without sufficient evidence) is as closed as their theism is.
Well, it’s not, not that they’re at all likely to discover that fact from their intellectual cloisters.
Glen Davidson
Your inability to follow my argument does not indicate confusion on my part.
Basically they are afraid of curiosity. Afraid of unanswered questions. Afraid of unanswerable questions.
They want answers and they want them nailed down.