Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, September 11, 2006

What is evolution?

"Evolution" has several meanings:

The meanings of evolution, from "Darwinism, Design and Public Education"-

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: 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.

"Darwinism, Design and Public Education" is not just a pro-ID book. It contains several essays from pro-IDists and several from ID critics and anti-IDists. They also reviewed the pro-ID essays before the book was published. Richard Dawkins gave us "the blind watchmaker thesis" which is supported by at least 38 Nobel laureates:

"Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."



ID is NOT anti-evolution, ID only argues against evolution #6.

posted by Joe G @ 7:36 AM  

12 Comments:

  • At 10:22 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    "Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."

    That is a reasonably correct statement of current scientific understanding and strongly supported by the evidence. But again, there is no reason to discuss the mechanism of divergence from common ancestors if you reject even the clear evidence for common descent of vertebrates or mammals.

     

  • At 10:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."

    Zachriel:
    That is a reasonably correct statement of current scientific understanding and strongly supported by the evidence.

    We don't even know whether or not mutations can allow for the changes required. And there is no way anyone is going to tell us what mutations caused what changes.

    Zachriel:
    But again, there is no reason to discuss the mechanism of divergence from common ancestors if you reject even the clear evidence for common descent of vertebrates or mammals.

    The only "evidence" for CD of verts or mammals is subjective. That is you have to assume it without ever demonstrating it.

    Nested hierarchies are bogus- that is they are not predicted by evolutionism and can be made of objects that do not share a common ancestor.

    Genetic similarities are also bogus as any theory of CD needs to explain the differences.

    Right now no one can explain what caused the differences we see betwen chimps and humans.

    And all we know about what makes an organism what it is is summed upo very neatly:

    What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following :

    Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)

    ”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”

    IOW the whole of evolutionism is based on ignorance...

     

  • At 11:22 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "We don't even know whether or not mutations can allow for the changes required."

    Actually, there is a great deal of evidence linking mutation to evolutionary change. But until resolving the issue of common descent, there is no point pursuing the mechanism of divergence from common ancestors. So,

    joe g: "The only 'evidence' for CD of verts or mammals is subjective."

    We know this isn't true because we can make specific empirical predictions.

    The evidence for common descent of vertebrates includes the succession of vertebrate fossils which form a nested hiearchy in time; the nested hierarchy of morphology; and the recently discovered nested hierarchy of genomes.

    Though genomes are the strongest evidence, let's start with fossils which are easier to understand.

    Principle of Superposition

    We can use the Theory of Common Descent to make predictions. Organisms are only found within predicted strata. A rabbit will never be found in undisturbed strata associated with the Precambrian. Humans will never be found in undisturbed strata associated with dinosaurs. That's because no one can preceed their own ancestor.

    And we can predict the existence of intermediate organisms —
    then go out and find them! This includes everything from whales with legs, hominids with a brain-size intermediate between humans and other extant apes, as well as intermediate gait, arm-leg ratio, etc.), and fish with limb bones, flexible necks, and lungs.

    Any kid can see a T.Rex at the museum, and see that evolutionary change is real and substantial.

     

  • At 1:34 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    The other thread that lead up to this was a discussion of whether of not evolution was "pretty much void of experimental data".

    As is typical in cases like this, this statement greatly relies on definition of terms. Specifically, the term "evolution".

    I believe the following is close to what was meant...

    Even though countless experiments have been performed in countless biology labs by hard-working Evolutionary Biologists, they have yet to prove that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes.

    I doubt many people would argue with such a statement, I wouldn't. This is the power, and the unfairness, of unilaterally defining terms.

    To save time, I will preemptably address a couple of items that are likely to come up...

    1. Yes, "prove" is a loaded term. It would be better to say something like "found compelling evidence for". I purposely left this open for if and when we define a "level playing field" that doesn't have you winning by default.

    2. The definition you are using is not acceptable by the people on the other side of the debate (including me). It comes from a controversial book edited and promoted by the organization pushing intelligent design. It is my position that it does not qualify as an authoritive source in the field of Evolutionary Biology. In short, it is a non-starter.

    3. A statement from 38 Nobel Laureates would be impressive if they were in the field of interest. Not one of them was a biologist, much less specialised in the field of Evolutionary Biology. Also note, they did not use the very loaded terms "unintelligent" and "purposeless" in their statement.

    4. Finally, I would like to address the possibility that I am taking a section of the definition out of context...

    The key terms in definition #6 are "unguided", "unintelligent" and "purposeless". These terms would force a proponent to prove-the-negative. This is why it is a non-starter. The words that follow "such as" may sound conciliatory but they are either meaningless or contridict the definition proceeding it.

    Here is a definition I could live with...

    Evolution Hypothesis: all indigenous earth-based organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through 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 sufficient to account for these organisms' existance and functions.

    If you find this definition unacceptable, I will probably have made my point.

    It is past my lunch hour, I will address other items later.

    Regards,
    Thought Provoker

     

  • At 8:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thought Provoker:
    The other thread that lead up to this was a discussion of whether of not evolution was "pretty much void of experimental data".

    Incorrect. It was that "evolutionism was pretty much void of experimental data". There is a huge difference.

    Thought Provoker:
    I believe the following is close to what was meant...

    Even though countless experiments have been performed in countless biology labs by hard-working Evolutionary Biologists, they have yet to prove that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes.

    They could start just by showing what makes an organism what it is. Then we could determine whether or not any amount of mutations can allow for the changes required.

    Thought Provoker:
    2. The definition you are using is not acceptable by the people on the other side of the debate (including me). It comes from a controversial book edited and promoted by the organization pushing intelligent design. It is my position that it does not qualify as an authoritive source in the field of Evolutionary Biology. In short, it is a non-starter.

    Umm as I stated that book and its contents were OK'ed by several anti-IDists. Also Richard Dawkins is the guy who gave us "the blind watchmaker thesis"- which tells us that NS is blind and purpose-less. I have yet to see ANY evolutionist that isn't a TE argue against that premise.

    Thought Provoker:
    3. A statement from 38 Nobel Laureates would be impressive if they were in the field of interest. Not one of them was a biologist, much less specialised in the field of Evolutionary Biology. Also note, they did not use the very loaded terms "unintelligent" and "purposeless" in their statement.

    No they used "unguided" and "unplanned".

    Thought Provoker:
    The key terms in definition #6 are "unguided", "unintelligent" and "purposeless". These terms would force a proponent to prove-the-negative. This is why it is a non-starter. The words that follow "such as" may sound conciliatory but they are either meaningless or contridict the definition proceeding it.

    Those terms are terms used by evolutionists such as Dawkins. Read "The Blind Watchmaker". "Such as" is used as a clarifier. As for "proving a negative" that is false and I have no idea how you inferred that.


    Thought Provoker:
    Evolution Hypothesis: all indigenous earth-based organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through 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 sufficient to account for these organisms' existance and functions.

    The words unguided and unplanned are required. Or even non-goal oriented. Without such qualifiers your definition is useless because it allows for goal oriented targets driven by random variations, such as what is seen in "Evolving Inventions" SciAm Feb 2003.

     

  • At 8:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Talk Origins posts this:

    One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:


    "In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable 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 proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
    - Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986


    "It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation."

    In practice this means that,

    Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

    However that is nonsense. Ya see mutations/ variations occur in the individual. NS acts on the individual. So to push the individual aside in favor of populations is comical.

    So if we go by the above definitions and your definition then why argue against ID? Seeing that ID is perfectly OK with the above and your definitions?

     

  • At 12:14 AM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    So if we go by the above definitions and your definition then why argue against ID? Seeing that ID is perfectly OK with the above and your definitions?

    Welcome to the level playing field!

    I am sincerely impressed. You quickly figured out where this was leading and jumped right to the point.

    Yes, as you often say, "ID is not anti-evolution". Well evolution is not anti-ID either.

    So where is the conflict?

    This is where the real Occam's razor comes into play. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

    Occam's razor is often misapplied. It does not mean the simpliest answer is the best. If that was true, Last Thursdayism would rule all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

    What Occam's razor tells us is that the extraneous assumptions should be shaved off.

    So, on a level playing field, the first step is to show each side has reasonable assumptions. To be reasonable, they have to be internally consistent and be sufficient to comprehensively explain the phenomenon in question.

    Now if one side can reasonably show that their set of assumptions is sufficient standing alone whereas the other side turns out to be a superset of the first (includes all side A's assumptions plus some more), then Occam's razor decides the winner.

    I will pause the logic train here and speak frankly.

    Here is what I see is going on politically. IDists are trying to frame the debate as...

    The "We" claim:
    Some parts of some organisms are possibly designed.

    The "They" claim:
    It is impossible that any part of any organism is designed.

    This would force the opposition into a position of arguing against a possibility (and anything is possible). This is what I mean by prove-the-negative.

    The Environmentalists are trying to frame the debate as...

    The "We" claim:
    Microevolution and other evidence shows that purely natural processes can create advanced organisms.

    The "They" claim:
    The designer of life is supernatural.

    With this forcing ID to be declared a religion.

    I hope you now understand how I am looking at this question. I am not going to let you define me into the first situation. From my perspective, with a level playing field and Occam's razor the best you can hope for is a technical draw. That is you prove ID isn't an "extraneous" assumption and share the field with evolution. Which, for practical purposes, is a political win for ID.

    I will stop here to see how you react.

     

  • At 9:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thought Provoker:
    What Occam's razor tells us is that the extraneous assumptions should be shaved off.

    So one design would be favoured over multiple genetic accidents.

    We know what designers are capable of and we can only assume what multiple genetic accidents are caoable of.

    Thought Provoker:
    Here is what I see is going on politically. IDists are trying to frame the debate as...

    The "We" claim:
    Some parts of some organisms are possibly designed.

    The "They" claim:
    It is impossible that any part of any organism is designed.

    Here is how I see it:

    ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., "Darwinism, Design and Public Education", pg. 92):

    1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
    2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
    3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
    4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

    And it extends well beyond evolution. For if life did not (or cannot) arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes then there would be no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those types of processes (ie the blind watchmaker).

    And then if we apply Ockham to the universe we have multiple cosmic collisions, coupled with multiple atomic accidents, coupled with multiple chance events all wrapped around multiple universes (multi-verse) vs. one design. I would say one design wins that also.

    And what your environmentalists don't realize is that even their scenario "turtles down" to something beyond nature.

     

  • At 12:20 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Thought Provoker:

    I wrote...
    What Occam's razor tells us is that the extraneous assumptions should be shaved off.

    You wrote...
    So one design would be favoured over multiple genetic accidents.

    I think you are falling for the incorrect simpler-is-better definition. Like, I said, Last Thursdayism wins that contest hands down.

    Which brings up another relevant point. Last Thursdayism, Creationism, ID and Evolution all have access to the level playing field. It is a personal, philosophical choice as to which set of assumptions you wish to believe in. However, once you decide, Occam's razor prevents "borrowing" from others. Last Thursdayism is sufficient all by itself. Trying to believe in Last Thursdayism AND evolution would run afoul of the razor.

    So, using your philosophy and beliefs you get to define your own set of assumptions.

    On a level playing field, I get to do the same.

    If it turns out one of us has a superset of the other's assumptions, the side with the extra assumptions needs to show why they are required.

    My set of assumptions are...

    1. The universe exists via a method yet to be discovered.

    2. About 3 million years simple life appeared on earth via a method not fully understood.

    3. All indigenous, earth-based organisms have descended from the simple life describe in assumption #2. ("Common Descent")

    4. This "Common Descent" was accomplished solely through material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations. This implies that these processes are sufficient to account for the existence and function of all indigenous earth-based organisms.

    As you have pointed out, these assumptions might include ID. However, if you add an ID assumption to the above that is not required by evidence, Occum's razor shaves it off.

     

  • At 1:27 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    My previous post dealt with setting up the "level playing field". I will now respond to your other thoughts...

    Joe wrote...

    3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.


    Please excuse my snipping the other parts. While it is all good information, this is all you need to say. If it can be shown that my (or evolution's) set of assumptions is not sufficient to explain something, then you have made your point.

    Phrases like "the best explanations for..." detract from this central point. Which is BEST is a matter of opinion.

    You are also making a very astute point when you say this "extends well beyond evolution". Evolution, per se, does not make assumptions about the creation of the universe but, obviously, evolution assumes the universe exists.

    The difference between what you see as evolution's implied assumption of "turtles down" vs your "one design" is that the one design assumption overshadow's everything.

    Once you assume a designer for all things, saying there is a designer of life is redundant.

    Let me attempt to put together your set of assumptions...

    1. A designer created a universe and preloaded it with information.
    This may or may not have been a supernatural event.

    2. About 3 million years ago life appeared on earth as part of the designed plan.

    3. Indiginous, earth based organisms descended from the original life or was created by the universal designer or both (direct modification of existing organisms).

    4. The methods used to create and/or evolve these organisms were, and are, natural processes. At this time, we have limited understanding of the evolutionary processes and practically no understanding of the processes used for creating new organisms.


    Joe, this is my earnest attempt to make a set of assumptions that match your philosophy. What do you think? (please don't be afraid to modify it or rewrite it in your own words).

     

  • At 2:09 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Oops, I slipped a few decimal points.

    The origin of life on earth is assumed to be around 3 BILLION years ago.

    I cant edit my entries, if you are so inclined, please do that for me.

    Thanks

     

  • At 8:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

    Thought Provoker:
    Please excuse my snipping the other parts. While it is all good information, this is all you need to say. If it can be shown that my (or evolution's) set of assumptions is not sufficient to explain something, then you have made your point.

    The first two premises just make it clear that ID is based on positive data coupled with premise 3- a negative.

    NOTE:
    Time is in short supply this week. I will respond in full later (hopefully by Saturday).

     

Post a Comment

<< Home