Is Human Design Truly Intelligent?

[Conehead]

Ok, we need to stop here because #1 There is no evidence of a "designer". That is merely something that has been thrown out to be considered, without anything to substantiate it, I might add.

I also disagree with those that say that ID should be allowed to be considered as an alternative "theory" to evolution.

Well, that's what were doing here. We aren't talking about it's scientific merits, whether it should be taught over evolution, or what academy doesn't approve.

You're kind of a downer, Evo. By your antiseptic definition of "theory" there could never be much fun conversation at all.

Where you tell me to "stop" is where this conversation began. You're absolutely right, there is no evidence of a designer. What ID has done is fill the gaps where science has failed to produce evidence to the contrary.

If you're the hardcore scientist (which you aren't) and I'm the lonely philosopher (which I'm not), I'm not going to stop thinking about the nature of a possible designer until you prove to me that I can't anymore.

 

[Conehead]

A remark: "intelligent design" depends of what is "intelligent". Certain algorithms have "intelligent behaviour" in the sense that they can solve problems for which the explicit solution has not been coded (the programmer didn't know the solution to the problem). As such, one can say that "intelligence" is an emerging property of the algorithm.
These are the kinds of algorithms that are studied by Artificial Intelligence. Rule-based expert systems are such examples, neural networks are such examples, and random search optimising algorithms are such examples. Particular cases of this last version are *genetic algorithms*.
If one can call genetic algorithms "intelligent" (because indeed, they succeed in solving problems of which the author didn't know how to do so), then in a certain way, Natural Selection IS an intelligent algorithm. As such, you can classify Natural Selection as a version of "intelligent design"
An example of an "intelligent" algorithm is the Integrate function of Mathematica. Contrary to the D operator, which applies simply differentiation rules which have been explicitly coded into Mathematica, Integrate works differently. It does a "random search" in function structures, applies the D operator and finds out if it comes close to the integrand ; then goes tweaking again to the trial function, until it finds a function such that when you apply D to it, it is identical to the integrand (or until something indicates it that it is drifting away from a possible solution in which case it gives up).
The people who programmed this DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO PERFORM CERTAIN INTEGRALS, but Integrate succeeded in doing so. The best proof is that they found errors in certain standard integration tables. Look at the Wolfram site for an explanation.

Are you implying that perhaps the governing or creating force could be along the lines of an intelligent algorithm? If so, I think this is a fascinating concept for a designer. The Fibonacci sequence comes to mind in how it’s very precise in predicting bud formations on plants. I know that’s not what you are talking about, just interesting.

Anyway, I wonder if there are algorithmic tables that can define their own rules. Are you aware of algorithms that can morph (as in change their own operating parameters)? I know that some chaos principles and fractals have this characteristic.

 

[vanesch]

Are you implying that perhaps the governing or creating force could be along the lines of an intelligent algorithm?

No, what I was trying to say is that, depending on your definition of intelligence (mine is: problem solving ability), you could claim that "life is intelligently designed" (because our design DOES solve problems), but that this doesn't imply any "governing or creating force". It is just that the mechanism of NS can be seen as an "intelligent algorithm" (there's a steered random search (steered, because no total-from-scratch DNA is generated, but DNA which worked with small modifications), which is mutation, and there is an optimising cost function, which is survival probability of descendents). These kinds of algorithms are known to result in "problem solving skills" (= intelligence).

Of course, that's something totally different as what ID proponents imply: that the intelligence must come from a "creator". It can simply be an emergent property of a natural mechanism which implements an algorithm. That's what I wanted to say, a bit tongue-in-cheek.

 

[Les Sleeth]

No, what I was trying to say is that, depending on your definition of intelligence (mine is: problem solving ability), you could claim that "life is intelligently designed" (because our design DOES solve problems), but that this doesn't imply any "governing or creating force". It is just that the mechanism of NS can be seen as an "intelligent algorithm" (there's a steered random search (steered, because no total-from-scratch DNA is generated, but DNA which worked with small modifications), which is mutation, and there is an optimising cost function, which is survival probability of descendents). These kinds of algorithms are known to result in "problem solving skills" (= intelligence).
Of course, that's something totally different as what ID proponents imply: that the intelligence must come from a "creator". It can simply be an emergent property of a natural mechanism which implements an algorithm. That's what I wanted to say, a bit tongue-in-cheek.

I think there might actually be something to what you say. In terms of looking at any living finished product, and judging it by how effectively it is organized to take advantage of natural resources, as well as to produce consciousness, there is nothing mundane about the organization behind living functions.

But for some, that is exactly what raises the red flag. Let's narrow the "some" to people who neither are committed to a theistic explanation or a physicalistic one. This type of neutral thinker might look at the fact that in the Darwinist model, when all is said and done, it is mechanics and physical potentials alone have produced such "intelligent design."

Yet looking at mechanics and physical potentials that aren't part of life, we never ever see them organizing themselves the way they do in life. To me, until Darwinist evolutionists can demonstrate the "intelligent" self-organizing potential of mechanics and physicalness, the theory will never hold water. Where/what is that INTELLIGENT organizing potential?

 

[Conehead]

Of course, that's something totally different as what ID proponents imply: that the intelligence must come from a "creator". It can simply be an emergent property of a natural mechanism which implements an algorithm. That's what I wanted to say, a bit tongue-in-cheek.

Actually, I've found little in the way of a unifying trait common among IDists (through straw-polling other professionals) beyond traditional creationists, that is. Some sort of adaptable algorithm or functionary of probabilities would compliment the other theories as well as anything else, in my estimation. Hawkins discusses "rolling the dice" frequently in his bits on alternate histories. But all of those rolls take place inside a self-contained universe.

If the universe is not self-contained, as ID proposes at it's root, why couldn't dice rolling take place before hand? If alternate histories seems too convenient inside the physical universe, why not consider them outside. Perhaps the universe is a product of a designer's probability. Or the designer is nothing more than a probability.

I'm floundering here (as you can see), though I like the concept.

 

[wave]

Then why would you blame physicalists and scientists for not accepting your evidence? You accuse them of not considering the nonphysical, yet you take no responsibility to persuade them. Are they suppose to take your word for it?

What if the shoe were on the other foot, and the standard for knowing in this world was union? Every once in awhile throughout the centuries, somebody practices empiricism and makes a great observation. The union experts say if we can experience it in union, then we'll accept it, if not then your claim is full of crap. So they study it through union and find nothing.

That is not the issue. I am questioning the basis of your complaint assuming everyone accepts union. You accuse scientists of not accepting the possibility that there is something nonphysical involved in evolution. However, mainstream science does not rule out that possibility although it is rarely explicit. Secondly, you have not offered anything beyond speculations, as to what that "something" may be - let alone persuade us of it. We don't have a single claim regarding Evolution to which we can investigate with union. You even admitted that you can't and won't convince us. Therefore I do not see any justification for your complaint.

Are they justified in studying empirical claims with union?

I honestly don't know. Is union restricted to the nonphysical? For instance, can you gain knowledge related to physics with union?

This idea of "convincing" is an externalizing standard, it is not the standard of internal development. The physicalist "word" on this matter is stated from experiential ingorance of the subject. Amongst the inexperienced who make ignorant claims, it is correct to say one opinion is as good as another.

Then aren't you guilty of your own charge? Who made you the keeper of "humanity's epistemological keys"? Why are your claims any better than those of "inexperienced" practitioners? Similarly, can you dismiss other nonphysicalists such as psychics and mediums without being a hypocrite?

So the experiences you gain from union have no implications on the physical world, besides inner contentment and happiness and wisdom? It's not my intension to diminish those wonderful things.

If you think this physical world isn't being affected by unhappy, discontent people, then you must live a pretty sheltered life.

That's a gross misrepresentation. Nowhere did I imply inner contentment, happiness and wisdom doesn't affect the physical world. I was merely looking for implications on scientific theories - and you have yet to offer any.

I am not changing evolution, I am trying to prevent physicalists from promoting their physicalist agenda which manifests as claims they've all but accounted for evolution when they really haven't.

That is clearly false. The literature demonstrates continual research and intensive debate over unproven mechanisms such as group selection.

And when I say they haven't looked at the evidence, to a great extent I mean they haven't taken the time to develop their inner self to know if there is something more than just the mechanics they are so obsessed with.

It wouldn't affect Evolution either way. No one can dismiss the possibility that there is something more. However, there is no sensible way to utilize that kind of knowledge in our theories. You can't rationally reject an unfalsifiable claim, so all it takes are two such contradicting claims to wreak havoc. Conversely, you can't rationally accept a claim because they can only rely on words to convince others (including fellow nonphysicalists) that their experiences are valid. The same problems exist under both physicalist and nonphysicalist paradigms. Your complaints will not be taken seriously by scientists, until you have a reasonable solution for those issues.

 

[Les Sleeth]

You accuse scientists of not accepting the possibility that there is something nonphysical involved in evolution. However, mainstream science does not rule out that possibility although it is rarely explicit.

Not "ruling out" maybe how scientism devotees posture themselves for the public but, for instance, Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick better represent what most scientists really think.

Mainstream science rules out any and all that isn't physical because they only investigate using a method which only yields physical info. That is the fact of the matter, but you refuse to acknowledge it.

Secondly, you have not offered anything beyond speculations, as to what that "something" may be - let alone persuade us of it.

You say I offer speculation, but what do you think much of evolution theory is? All you can prove is that life forms evolved in stages over time, and that natural selection-genetic variation can produce superficial changes. What you cannot prove is what caused the sorts of genetic variation to occur, and then be chosen, which led to complex organs and organ systems. In these areas you stick your physicalist natural selection-genetic variation theory in every gap you have. And all gaps where it can't be stuck, you have another physicalistic speculation waiting, some of which make little sense.

For example, Dr. Howard Glicksman has been writing about often-stated problem that many life processes require the prior development of supportive functions that have no reason to develop unless the end process is being aimed at. He poses his objections in about 20 areas of evolution (and he’s still writing), from neurons and the eye to fluid balance and gender development:
http://www.arn.org/eyw.htm

Towards the end of his article on how Vitamin D could have evolved http://www.arn.org/docs/glicksman/eyw_031104.htm he asks:

“Which function did the liver cell develop first: the ability to start the activation of Vitamin D or to produce the Vitamin D transport protein? What good would it be for the liver to be able to start the activation process of Vitamin D if it hadn’t first produced the Vitamin D transport protein so that the Vitamin D could come to the liver in the first place? And what good would it be if the Vitamin D transport protein was able to transport Vitamin D, but the liver couldn’t start the activation process? And when did the kidney develop its ability to apply the final activating step without which Vitamin D activity in the body would be so reduced that intestinal absorption of calcium would be seriously hampered to the point of certain death? When did the intestinal cells develop a receptor that was specific for activated Vitamin D? Before or after Vitamin D could be activated? If before, what usefulness would they have for the body without activated Vitamin D? And if after, then how did activated Vitamin D exert its effect on the intestinal cell?

These are some of the questions that require answers to validate the theory of macroevolution when we contemplate bones of any age. I’m sure that many of you can come up with even more. Some of my critics have commented that macroevolution does not preclude an organism having had produced biologically useless molecules . . . remember, medical science has proven that without Vitamin D activity in the body, the body as we know it would not exist. But macroevolution claims a step by step development over time. Here is a perfect opportunity to apply known data about a biological system and what is known to make it fail with a theory that purports to explain how this same said biological system came into being.”

The answer a physicalist might offer, “macroevolution does not preclude an organism having had produced biologically useless molecules” is glossing over the seriousness of the problem. It’s the same way physicalists gloss over explaining how sufficient genetic variation could have occurred at the rate necessary to account for the degree of organ development AND the high level of their functionality during the Cambrian explosion. It’s the same way physicalists gloss over the fact that chemistry doesn’t exhibit the self-organizing quality needed for abiogenesis to occur.

We don't have a single claim regarding Evolution to which we can investigate with union. You even admitted that you can't and won't convince us. Therefore I do not see any justification for your complaint.

What makes you think you can investigate every damn thing with science? Your “therefore” doesn’t follow from anything I have said, so you can't see any justification because you aren't listening. What I have been saying is:

PHYSICALISTS ARE PROMOTING PHYSICALIST ONTOLOGY TO THE PUBLIC IN THE GUISE OF OBJECTIVE FACTS ABOUT EVOLUTION.

What they are doing is ONTOLOGIZING. How? They have a physicalist filter in place, they exaggerate the importance of the evidence they have, they gloss over areas of physiclistic theory that don't make sense, and they refuse to look at other epistemologies which might indicate there is more to know than just physicalness. Having sealed their minds tight against all avenues of knowing and thought except physicalness they, for example, convince the supreme court to let them teach physicalist ontology to our children.

Why not keep one’s mouth shut about what one doesn't know instead of saying some physical cause is "most likely" for unproven areas? The typical answer is, to restart the circle of physicalist filter, exaggerate, gloss over, refuse to look at other epistemologies . . . and then proclaim, "we've found nothing more likely than physical answers,” and/or “I do not see any justification for your complaint.”

This idea of "convincing" is an externalizing standard, it is not the standard of internal development. The physicalist "word" on this matter is stated from experiential ignorance of the subject. Amongst the inexperienced who make ignorant claims, it is correct to say one opinion is as good as another.

Then aren't you guilty of your own charge? Who made you the keeper of "humanity's epistemological keys"? Why are your claims any better than those of "inexperienced" practitioners? Similarly, can you dismiss other nonphysicalists such as psychics and mediums without being a hypocrite?

Scientism devotees like to pretend they've got the epistemological keys because it is they who want to subject everything to scientific scrutiny and dismiss all that fails their tests. Where do you see me demanding physical factors be studied spiritually? Two realms, two different epistemologies. It’s only when one tries to take over the other that problems arise. It used to be the spiritual side who arrogated, now it’s the science side.

My point was that there have been others who’ve developed their consciousness in ways that has led to knowing something that can't be known through empiricism. In ignorance of that method, scientists "dismiss" the inner practitioner's claims of "something more." When told that to study the claims they have to master the inner methods themselves, they decline to do that and again demand the inner practitioner submit to scientific investigations.

This inner realization is not only a lot older than science, it has inspired the majority of people on this planet. Isn't it arrogant for scientism devotees to think what the Buddha or Jesus achieved consciously should reveal itself in the lab? The inner practitioner would tell you that to know if there is "something more" you have to look inside yourself.

Maybe you aren’t following the polls, but about 90% of the world’s population doesn’t think science has all the answers. What you do see is a great respect for what science actually has accomplished, but also growing resistance by people of faith in the theoretical areas where science is making exaggerated claims. In respect to this latter issue, I think scientists better shape up because they are going to lose credibility. Not everybody who is objecting is some blind-faith, uninformed, undereducated dunce; some pretty smart people are starting to challenge scientism’s exaggerated claims.

It wouldn't affect Evolution either way. No one can dismiss the possibility that there is something more. However, there is no sensible way to utilize that kind of knowledge in our theories.

Yes, but you don't get to automatically stick something physical where all the missing pieces are either. You can for yourself, but it's textbooks and public specials that are the issue. I don't know why you can't see the complaint. No one is saying you have to suggest God may be in the gaps. Just leave the gaps (i.e., at least those most under contention) vacant from speculations when you are telling the public what is "most likely."

Conversely, you can't rationally accept a claim because they can only rely on words to convince others (including fellow nonphysicalists) that their experiences are valid. The same problems exist under both physicalist and nonphysicalist paradigms. Your complaints will not be taken seriously by scientists, until you have a reasonable solution for those issues.

For someone so smart you sure do miss the point. Who is asking you accept a claim? My reason for pointing to union was to indicate there is other expertise on this planet. The scientist doesn't have to accept any metaphysical claims to be more broadly educated about another method of knowing, or to learn to respect what can’t be achieved through science but which may have bearing on how creation came about nonetheless.

 

[Tisthammerw]

I don't know why you can't see the complaint. No one is saying you have to suggest God may be in the gaps. Just leave the gaps (i.e., at least those most under contention) vacant from speculations when you are telling the public what is "most likely."

Evolution is something of a sacred cow, to the extent that nearly any attack will be declared “religious”--at least in the public schools.

Biblical creationism? Banned from biology classes and rightly so, because it is religious.

Intelligent design (artificial intervention was necessary for the creation of life on Earth) - not religious, but has been declared as such by its opponents.

Scientific evidence against evolution - also not religious, but I've seen opponents declare it so even in this case (when one proposed it be introduced in the classroom).

Some things evolution does not (yet?) adequately explain - I bet would probably be declared religious too.

Has the "religious" decree gone too far? Of course. But I doubt one would have much luck overcoming this error (at least at this point in time).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, what I was trying to say is that, depending on your definition of intelligence (mine is: problem solving ability), you could claim that "life is intelligently designed" (because our design DOES solve problems), but that this doesn't imply any "governing or creating force".

When I first heard about ID I thought that it was simply about a driving factor behind evolution. Simply "something" that made things happen the way they did that was consistant and seemingly intelligent. The only scientific essay that I have read by a scientist who supports ID, or at least it's investigation, referred to "law like processes" which shaped evolution. Something like the "law like processes" that shape general physics. He mentioned no god or creator or even "intelligence" (how ever one wishes to define it) in his entire paper.
I've tried discussing this before, the idea of intelligent design without god or there simply being some sort of physical laws which made evolution occur the way it did aside from "natural selection". The debate always winds up with either the knee jerk "ID isn't science, it's creationism in desguise!" or people wind up asking "Well then why is it called Intelligent Design if there isn't an intelligent creator behind it?". No one ever seems to want to discuss the idea itself, just what they think it is or what they think is wrong with the name.
That one paper is the only really scientific one I have been able to find regarding ID, and maybe there's a reason for that, but it makes me wonder if the real scientists behind this idea are just catching flack because of the people who use it to further their theological agenda.




By the way, haven't seen you in PWA much. Congrats on the Super Mentor promotion.

 

[loseyourname]

It seems like this principle of a 'driving force' behind evolution is simply the reification of a mathematical algorithm capable of describing the behavior of the evolving system. We can write differential equations that model the relationship between the size of predator and prey populations in a mountain habitat, but that doesn't mean that there actually is anything akin to a differential equation that exists 'in the world' and operates as an organizing principle dictating the behavior of these animals. We're simply combining multiple simpler functions that can give us the size of a population given the availability of food and land and what have you. Even these simpler functions do not have any real existence in the world; they are simply a means by which we quantify the fact that if there is less food available on a given plot of land, that plot of land will support less individuals. The only thing about this that is 'real' are the individuals themselves and the food and land.

 

[Evo]

Well, that's what were doing here. We aren't talking about it's scientific merits, whether it should be taught over evolution, or what academy doesn't approve.

You're kind of a downer, Evo. By your antiseptic definition of "theory" there could never be much fun conversation at all.

Where you tell me to "stop" is where this conversation began. You're absolutely right, there is no evidence of a designer. What ID has done is fill the gaps where science has failed to produce evidence to the contrary.

If you're the hardcore scientist (which you aren't) and I'm the lonely philosopher (which I'm not), I'm not going to stop thinking about the nature of a possible designer until you prove to me that I can't anymore.

Sorry if I'm a downer, at first I thought this was a serious discussion, but I guess you guys are having fun discussing it on a different level, so have at it. Sorry to intrude.

Besides, we already killed ID in GD.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It seems like this principle of a 'driving force' behind evolution is simply the reification of a mathematical algorithm capable of describing the behavior of the evolving system. We can write differential equations that model the relationship between the size of predator and prey populations in a mountain habitat, but that doesn't mean that there actually is anything akin to a differential equation that exists 'in the world' and operates as an organizing principle dictating the behavior of these animals. We're simply combining multiple simpler functions that can give us the size of a population given the availability of food and land and what have you. Even these simpler functions do not have any real existence in the world; they are simply a means by which we quantify the fact that if there is less food available on a given plot of land, that plot of land will support less individuals. The only thing about this that is 'real' are the individuals themselves and the food and land.

I'm certainly aware of the problem in confusing the map with the territory. I wouldn't suggest chucking natural selection as a model out the window but if it seems there are instances where it fails to predict reality it would seem it perhaps still needs something more. Perhaps there are variables that we are unaware of currently.
Abiogenesis isn't really covered by natural selection. People usually complain that it isn't supposed to cover it and they don't have anything to do with one another. It would seem to me though that what ever processes occur in abiogenesis would have effect still on evolution even after life has began. If this is true and the processes described by natural selection truly can not explain abiogenesis then it would seem there are still variables going unnoticed.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I emailed Dr. Glicksman asking him to join the debate. He declined saying philosophy isn't his thing, but did offer a couple of interesting comments:

". . . there are hundreds of irreducibly complex systems in the human body that each require at least 3 components. A sensor to detect a vital parameter, like Ca++, O2, CO2, osmolarity, BP etc, a cell that can respond to the changes in this parameter by sending out a message (nervous message, hormone etc), and a target cell that often has a specific receptor (insulin, parathormone etc.) to respond to the message that effects a change required for life. These parameters must stay within very narrow ranges for life or we die.

This is the basis for the pathophysiology of disease, dysfunction and death and the practice of medicine. Not only is the body able to do all 3 of these things but it also must inherently know what the levels of these parameters must be! By the way, each of these 3 components are genetically based, so one must immediately wonder how they could come about one step at a time . . ."

 

[Les Sleeth]

Abiogenesis isn't really covered by natural selection. People usually complain that it isn't supposed to cover it and they don't have anything to do with one another. It would seem to me though that what ever processes occur in abiogenesis would have effect still on evolution even after life has began. If this is true and the processes described by natural selection truly can not explain abiogenesis then it would seem there are still variables going unnoticed.

I see it similarly. Whatever caused abiogenesis is the driving force of evolution too. Some sort of organizing force which keeps "seeking" higher orders of functionality.

 

[Evo]

Not only is the body able to do all 3 of these things but it also must inherently know what the levels of these parameters must be! By the way, each of these 3 components are genetically based, so one must immediately wonder how they could come about one step at a time . . ."

Ok, I lied, I'm back.

This is the basic problem when you try to "reverse engineer" something that isn't understood. It can be as simple as "that's the combination, that by accident, worked", which is why the other versions, if there were any, aren't still in existence. It doesn't imply anything.

We don't know the answers, may never know the answers. I would have a problem with anyone saying that we know all the answers, but at the same time, we can't think that because we don't have all the answers we should just stop searching and proclaim that it was all pre-fabricated by some "being". If it was, there would no longer be a point to searching.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Ok, I lied, I'm back.
This is the basic problem when you try to "reverse engineer" something that isn't understood. It can be as simple as "that's the combination, that by accident, worked", which is why the other versions, if there were any, aren't still in existence. It doesn't imply anything.

It does imply something when so many "accidents" are required to result in functionality, yet accidents normally result in mahem.

Try reverse engineering one of my pizzas and see how many "accidents" there were on the way to that airy, light, crunchy crust. It is guided every step of the way by consciousness, and if it weren't you'd have a pasty blob at best.

I say, it is only because people so want to believe accidents plus physicalness can achieve high levels of organization that they ignore what they actually know about accidents and physicalness from having observed their chaotic, usually-destructive ways every day of their lives.

 

[loseyourname]

I would also be wary of these claims of Dr. Glicksman. Not to say he is necessarily incorrect (I don't personally know), but given the debunking of Behe's irreducible complexity examples, there may very well be examples in the biological sciences of reduced forms of these systems he is citing that do function.

The positive thing about irreducible complexity, however, is that it is a scientific claim in that it is falsifiable. If the hypothesis is simply "X is composed of A, B, and C and cannot function without all three parts" and we find out that, in fact, there exists some system Y that is composed of A and B, but not C, that nonetheless still serves some function, then the hypothesis would be falsified. I would actually think that these proposed "irreducible" systems might make for a fruitful area of investigation for molecular biologists (they usually seem to be molecular systems).

 

[Tisthammerw]

Besides, we already killed ID in GD.

Please see post #146 of this thread.

 

[Tisthammerw]

I would also be wary of these claims of Dr. Glicksman. Not to say he is necessarily incorrect (I don't personally know), but given the debunking of Behe's irreducible complexity examples, there may very well be examples in the biological sciences of reduced forms of these systems he is citing that do function.

I'd be cautious about declaring that Behe’s claims (when it comes to whether a biochemical system is irreducibly complex) have been debunked. At least some of these “debunkings” are a result of misunderstanding. See an excerpt from this web article for instance:

Professor Doolittle argued that new laboratory work showed two components of the blood clotting cascade could be eliminated ("knocked-out") from mice and the mice got along fine without them. However, Doolittle misread the laboratory work: the double knock-out mice have severe problems and have no functioning blood clotting system.

It's seems implausible to me that Behe, a competent Ph.D. biochemist, could get something so basically wrong regarding which parts are necessary for a biochemical system to function. (Read the rest of the web article, it contains some good comments regarding other criticisms.)

The positive thing about irreducible complexity, however, is that it is a scientific claim in that it is falsifiable. If the hypothesis is simply "X is composed of A, B, and C and cannot function without all three parts" and we find out that, in fact, there exists some system Y that is composed of A and B, but not C, that nonetheless still serves some function, then the hypothesis would be falsified. I would actually think that these proposed "irreducible" systems might make for a fruitful area of investigation for molecular biologists (they usually seem to be molecular systems).

I agree, with some modification. System Y would only be a counterexample if it serves the same function as system X (if you keep in mind what Behe means by irreducibly complex). Irreducible complexity doesn’t make evolution of that system logically impossible, but it does present a significant obstacle. If all the parts are needed of a complex system to function, one would have to show some evolutionary advantage for each part added, and that advantage can’t be “making the biochemical system [e.g. blood clotting] better” because by definition all the parts are needed to serve the given function. One could get around irreducible complexity by saying that each part added served a different evolutionary advantage for the creature. Behe claims that with horrendously intricate irreducibly complex biochemical systems, that sort of thing is not plausible (especially since that sort of rigorous explanation has never been done). Time will tell whether Behe is correct regarding if we’ll eventually find a way to overcome the problem via the mutation-selection mechanism.

 

[loseyourname]

I'm going to have to get back to you on the specific debunking of Behe's claims that I'm thinking of, as I am pretty certain that they cannot be found on the web. If I can track them down, I'll post them here.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I would also be wary of these claims of Dr. Glicksman. Not to say he is necessarily incorrect (I don't personally know), but given the debunking of Behe's irreducible complexity examples, there may very well be examples in the biological sciences of reduced forms of these systems he is citing that do function.

I agree that IC can be logically discredited. From my own perspective, it has to be questionable if for no other reason than I believe all life did develop step-by-step. But I think IC is relevant in another way when we toss in that pesky Cambrian explosion. I’ll be quoting from the following article which I offer as an objective assessment:

http://www.angelfire.com/tn/tifni/misc/cambrianexplosion.html

“Half a billion years ago, during this "evolutionary big bang," life evolved at rates of over twenty times the Precambrian rate. From approximately 535 million years ago to 520 million years ago, nearly all the animal phyla in existence today (and many that are no longer with us), save the Bryozoa, first appeared in the fossil record. While this does not necessarily entail that all animal phyla came into existence during the Cambrian explosion – some scientists believe that the "explosion" was a change in climate that produced conditions favorable for the fossilization of preexisting phyla – the evidence for a period of astounding diversification of life is overwhelming. The animals that made their abrupt appearance during the Cambrian explosion are ancestors of virtually all the creatures that swim, fly, and crawl today.

Until recently, scientists believed that phyla evolved over a ridiculously short period of 75 million years. In 1993, a group of researchers from M.I.T. and Harvard did some zircon dating in Siberia, then took the Cambrian period, chopped it in half, and stomped down the evolutionary boom to the first 5 to 10 million years. ‘We now know how fast fast is,’ grinned Samuel Bowring of M.I.T. in an interview with Time magazine. ‘And what I like to ask my biologist friends is, How fast can evolution get before they start feeling uncomfortable?’

In order for all but one of Earth’s phyla to have evolved in that period of time, the rate of genetic variation had to have been off the scale compared to what we see now. Since much of the biochemical “pre-adaptive” evolution Dr. Glicksman points to had have occurred then too (to produce gender, eyes, metabolism, neurons and brains, bones . . . ) what we have is something far more than the occasional providential pre-adaptive accident. The success rate of supposedly “accidental” genetic variation would have to be astonishingly efficacious (compared to what’s observed today) in both producing pre-adaptive chemistry and new organs. What might account for that sort of success rate? The article continues:

“The possible causes of the Cambrian explosion are as numerous and whimsical as the animals it created. Predation is a popular explanation. The appearance of multicellular grazers prompted the appearance of multicellular predators. Initial signs of predation appear just before the Cambrian period. The appearance of hard, protective shells in the late Precambrian may indicate the incipience of a biological arms race. Another popular explanation is the ‘empty barrel’ hypothesis, which compares Cambrian creatures to settlers and the biosphere of the time to the American West.

Paleobotanist Douglas Erwin of the Smithsonian Institution points to homeotic homeobox genes as the Precambrian triggers of the Cambrian explosion. These genes, also called Hox genes, control embryonic development. Primitive multicellular organisms such as jellyfish have 3 Hox genes. Now scientists believe that around 550 million years ago, some worm-like creature expanded its Hox cluster to six genes. ‘Boom!’ shouted Jablonski in his interview with Time. ‘Life crossed some sort of critical threshold.’

Researchers at Caltech and the University of Puerto Rico revealed a literally earth-shattering possibility in 1997. The Cambrian explosion might have been detonated by a rollover performed by the crust and mantle of the Earth. Such acrobatics, prompted by a phenomenon known as true polar wander, involved continental drift ten times the normal rate (i.e. 30 centimeters per year, a blatant violation of the "plate tectonic speed limit"5). The dramatic shift, which took place over a mere 15 million years, coincided with the Cambrian explosion.

Continental flip-flop began with the breakup of the supercontinent Rodinia at the North Pole at a time when Gondwanaland stretched from the South Pole to the equator. Because a spinning sphere is most stable when most of its mass lies at the equator, the Earth was thrown off balance by its extensive polar mass. The entire crust and mantle slid over the core, 90 degrees, to return the continents to the equator.

Such a tumultuous change in climate and ocean circulation swiftly fragmented large-scale ecosystems to create smaller, more isolated populations. These populations branched in an eruption of riotous divergent evolution. Groups of species, isolated from each other, evolved rapidly into different species in a process known as speciation and adaptive radiation. Radiation allowed organisms to inhabit new niches and increase diversity, a process that mysteriously left little evidence of transitional forms in its wake. No new phyla, besides the Bryozoans, have emerged since the Cambrian explosion. Scientists speculate that extensive adaptive radiation filled all available niches, leaving no room for additional phyla. Neither has such gargantuan genetic variation occurred since that period. Possibly, once life became as complex as it did in the Cambrian explosion, organisms could no longer risk major changes in physiology. Even miniscule variations in the genetic code could prove fatal, just as one erroneous gene coding for an enzyme might render a creature unable to survive."

Yes, but how can any of those suggestions explain the Cambrian’s genetic variation? They might help explain speciation, but none of it accounts for the enormous level of genetic variation needed to produce such numbers of new organs and the associated biochemistry (which must include pre-adaptive development), or sufficiently different “selecting” conditions than the world as a whole offers today, or the time to achieve the selection by way of “incremental changes” so often sited as the way to explain the complex functionality that impresses so many human observers of life. But most importantly, what’s stopping genetic variation from being what it once was, whether any of the variation is selected or not? There is no doubt that the robustness and effectiveness of genetic variation today is nothing like it was during the Cambrian period.

And right here is where those of us open to some sort of organizing force or universal consciousness may see possibilities. If, for instance, the genetics of Cambrian life forms were being manipulated purposely to produce great variety, then we’d need neither so large an amount of genetic variation as dumb evolution requires, nor as much time for change to occur.

While Biblical creationism may not make much sense, the idea that intelligence has been involved in evolution can answer some of the mysteries just as well or better than any physicalist theory currently offers. And it certainly proposes no more speculation than those trying to justify the Darwinian belief system.

The article concludes by at least acknowledging (refreshing to hear from an apparent physicalist) the problem all theories have explaining evolution:

“The Cambrian Explosion leaves us humans, 500 million years later, with the most puzzling of questions. The Cambrian rocks of the geologic column contain a proliferation of complex life; however, no trace of predecessors to such complex and sometimes offbeat organisms is to be found in Precambrian rocks. For example, the evolution of vertebrate fish from invertebrate animals, which wore exoskeletons and left no traces of turning their exoskeletons inside out to produce vertebrae, remains a gaping hole in the evolutionary timeline. Thus the Cambrian explosion raises questions about Darwin’s grand theory of evolution.

Creationists exploit the Cambrian explosion as evidence that the Biblical record of creation is true. Then God said, ‘Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures.’ So appeared the abundant fish and marine life that appeared during the Cambrian explosion. These ‘stationary or slow-moving’ creatures were the first to be overwhelmed by the mud and silt of the Deluge, and they were fossilized to be discovered half a billion years later.

The existence of such a plethora of conflicting hypotheses, all of which are viable, some of which seem fantastic, may instill a sense of doubt in the reader as to whether any of them correctly explain the mystery of the Cambrian explosion. In my opinion, a propitious combination of true polar wander, predation, and an increase in the number of Hox genes provides the most satisfactory and comprehensive explanation. I tend to doubt the creationism hypothesis not because of a prodigious lack of faith, but rather because the creationists seem to embrace it too heartily and ignore the conspicuous incongruities between Genesis and current ‘scientific’ beliefs. However, the true polar wander hypothesis is relatively new and has been challenged in Science, where it was first published. The unstoppable advance of science may eventually reach a firm conclusion as to what triggered the Cambrian explosion. For now we must continue to wonder about and wonder at this remarkable and baffling proliferation of life.”

 

[Les Sleeth]

I'm going to have to get back to you on the specific debunking of Behe's claims that I'm thinking of, as I am pretty certain that they cannot be found on the web. If I can track them down, I'll post them here.

Well, I've read exceptions to IC, such as the development of hemoglobin, and that is why I said Behe's concept can be logically discredited. But it doesn't mean that all of life could actually have evolved relying on so many pre-adaptive developments advance life forms would have required. So I think "debunk" is too strong of a word to use. I might have said that there are logical answers for allowing at least some types of pre-adaptive evolution to occur, which renders IC less than an ironclad principle.

 

[Conehead]

Sorry if I'm a downer, at first I thought this was a serious discussion, but I guess you guys are having fun discussing it on a different level, so have at it. Sorry to intrude.
Besides, we already killed ID in GD.

Shoot. No worries. It's tough having all these geniuses crammed into one small chat room.

I hope you properly sedated ID first.

 

[loseyourname]

Paleobotanist Douglas Erwin of the Smithsonian Institution points to homeotic homeobox genes as the Precambrian triggers of the Cambrian explosion. These genes, also called Hox genes, control embryonic development. Primitive multicellular organisms such as jellyfish have 3 Hox genes. Now scientists believe that around 550 million years ago, some worm-like creature expanded its Hox cluster to six genes. ‘Boom!’ shouted Jablonski in his interview with Time. ‘Life crossed some sort of critical threshold.’

Not that my personal opinion carries much weight, but this is the explanation that I personally hitch my wagon to (of course, I'm not an evolutionary researcher, so that frankly makes no difference).

The key to remember here is that the development of phyla did not necessarily require any more genetic variation than exists today. It simply required variation in certain genetic loci that had noticeable morphological consequences. For instance, one variation on the hox genes could result in six limbs and another in four. One results in a spinal cord and another doesn't. The vast differences from phylum to phylum seen today most likely evolved to fit these new body types, rather than the other way around.

Another fact about the Cambrian explosion that I would point out is that the rocky outcroppings in Cambria created a perfect environment for the preservation of fossils. It isn't necessarily the case that all of these animal phyla actually came into existence that suddenly. It is also possible that the conditions in Cambria were what came about suddenly and that is the reason we see a huge explosion in the number of fossils found then.

All of this being said, I am really only adding to the possibilities you have already cited and not trying to say I actually have any answers. The explosion is certainly a phenomenon that cries out for explanation, but it isn't really something that makes me think that there was any kind of intelligence dictating the way in which mutations were taking place at that time. Heck, maybe there was some kind of astonomic phenomena or a disruption in the Earth's magnetic field that greatly increased the level of mutagenic cosmic rays reaching the surface and that caused variation to explode. Whatever happened was likely to have been a happy and unlikely coincidence, but let's face it, happy and unlikely coincidences have to happen at some point somewhere.

 

[Tisthammerw]

Well, I've read exceptions to IC, such as the development of hemoglobin, and that is why I said Behe's concept can be logically discredited.

It should be pointed out that Behe doesn’t claim that all biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, just that some (e.g. the blood clotting cascade) are.

Lest anyone misunderstand (and I’m not saying you’re claiming otherwise Les Sleeth), hemoglobin is related to blood clotting obviously (in that hemoglobin is found in blood) but even finding a rigorously developed way to evolve hemoglobin doesn’t solve the cascade problem, since more is needed for it to work.

 

[Tisthammerw]

I'm going to have to get back to you on the specific debunking of Behe's claims that I'm thinking of, as I am pretty certain that they cannot be found on the web.

Incidentally, Doolittle's criticism was first published in the Feb/March 1997 Boston Review, not on the Internet (though to be fair Doolittle's “refutation” of the irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade can now be found on the web).

 

[loseyourname]

Incidentally, Doolittle's criticism was first published in the Feb/March 1997 Boston Review, not on the Internet (though to be fair Doolittle's “refutation” of the irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade can now be found on the web).

The criticisms I am thinking of were published by Kenneth Miller as part of his book Finding Darwin's God, in which he infers the existence of God to justify his Christian faith using cosmological and ethical arguments, but only after first dismissing the most popular attacks on naturalistic evolution, insisting that divine intervention in the process actually runs contrary to Christian doctrine. It's quite refreshing to see a devout Christian who is not only not threatened by Darwinism, but indeed sees it as an affirmation of his faith.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Paleobotanist Douglas Erwin of the Smithsonian Institution points to homeotic homeobox genes as the Precambrian triggers of the Cambrian explosion. These genes, also called Hox genes, control embryonic development. Primitive multicellular organisms such as jellyfish have 3 Hox genes. Now scientists believe that around 550 million years ago, some worm-like creature expanded its Hox cluster to six genes. ‘Boom!’ shouted Jablonski in his interview with Time. ‘Life crossed some sort of critical threshold.’

The key to remember here is that the development of phyla did not necessarily require any more genetic variation than exists today. It simply required variation in certain genetic loci that had noticeable morphological consequences. For instance, one variation on the hox genes could result in six limbs and another in four. One results in a spinal cord and another doesn't. The vast differences from phylum to phylum seen today most likely evolved to fit these new body types, rather than the other way around.

I appreciate any arguments you can make against my point that what happened during the Cambria period speaks against purely mechanistic genetic variation plus natural selection as the cause. Your suggestion for the “key to remember,” however, only shifts what’s uncharacteristic from the amount of variation to the quality of variation. It seems to me it has to be one or the other, and I see quality as an even bigger problem than quantity if high-functioning organization is to come about mechanically.

No matter what, if it’s chemistry and physics that are deciding the variation, you still end up dependent on a dumb decision-making process to produce genetic variation.

The explosion is certainly a phenomenon that cries out for explanation, but it isn't really something that makes me think that there was any kind of intelligence dictating the way in which mutations were taking place at that time. . . . Whatever happened was likely to have been a happy and unlikely coincidence, but let's face it, happy and unlikely coincidences have to happen at some point somewhere.

Although your preference expressed here is the view of a great many scientific thinkers, I totally do not understand the logic of it. Why do you believe that “happy and unlikely coincidences” are more likely to cause a high level of functionality than intelligence?

To me, there has to be a basis for faith in a process. Set up any non-living naturally-occurring situation you please and observe the degree of high-functioning organization that develops. There are few “happy and unlikely coincidences,” and certainly nothing reveals itself as capable of organizing itself into a living system. Most accidents are entropic, not constructive, so where is the basis for faith in accidents?

Similarly, the genetics within a living system have no mechanical reason to vary to the benefit of the organism. Why would any set of environmental conditions, whether polar wander or mutagenic cosmic rays, increase the percentage of genetic variations useful to the development of organs? Why would Hox genes do anything more than increase numbers (i.e., rather, again, than quality)? Why should we believe natural selection will do anything except “select” superficial changes that will either assist in mating or avoid being eaten? For organ development, where is the evidence genes can vary sufficiently or that natural selection would repeatedly chose a variation potentially valuable for something still many evolutionary developments steps away from being able to be utilized?

So in one theory we have no observational basis for faith in mechanics to achieve high-functioning organization on their own, and no observational basis for faith in genetic variation and natural selection to create organs/organisms in 5 to 10 million years.

What does the intelligence theory have to offer? Well, on this planet, the only organizing force we have ever observed creating high-functioning organization is . . . yep, consciousness (I am one of those who believe that all animal life exhibits a degree of consciousness). If consciousness is the only known force like that, then why isn’t it a contender amongst the speculations of what is behind great organizational mysteries like abiogenesis or the Cambrian explosion?

There is only one reason I can see and it is because physicalistic theorizers don’t like the idea of consciousness-guided evolution, and are committed a priori to a mechanistic accounting whether it makes the most sense or not.

 

[Fliption]

Intelligent design is nothing but a veiled attempt to argue that we were created by an omnipotent being. So let's see how intelligent our design really is.

I haven't read through this thread so forgive me if this has been pointed out but your arguments are against an omnipotent being, which may or may not having anything to do with intelligent design. Surely you aren't arguing that I am not intelligent simply because the house I built has flaws?

 

[Tisthammerw]

The criticisms I am thinking of were published by Kenneth Miller as part of his book Finding Darwin's God, in which he infers the existence of God to justify his Christian faith using cosmological and ethical arguments, but only after first dismissing the most popular attacks on naturalistic evolution, insisting that divine intervention in the process actually runs contrary to Christian doctrine. It's quite refreshing to see a devout Christian who is not only not threatened by Darwinism, but indeed sees it as an affirmation of his faith.

Indeed it is refreshing. It should be noted however that I and many other Christians have no religious problem with Darwinism (of course, there are many more conservative Christians who do have religious problems with it). Behe for instance is himself a Roman Catholic who was taught that evolution was part of God's way to create life. It wasn't until he became convinced for scientific reasons that orthodox evolution was not entirely correct (he doesn't completely reject common descent, but does believe there were instances of artificial intervention).

But more to the point, you can find Behe's response to Miller (in addition to a few other people) here. Incidentally, Miller (I believe) doesn't dispute the fact that the blood-clotting cascade is irreducibly complex in the book you were talking about, though he does claim that evolution of the cascade can still occur. Miller talks about things not related to blood clotting cascade of vertebrates (which Behe was talking about) and despite his somewhat lengthy description of how blood clotting works, his proposed model of evolution only takes up one paragraph. Behe claims that Miller's proposal here ignores critical details (e.g. the issue of regulation in blood clotting) and thus doesn't do an adequate job of overcoming the problem of irreducible complexity. On this point I think he's right. Miller's proposal really doesn't go into sufficient detail at all. (Incidentally, for those who have attempted to debunk Behe’s claims regarding global disciplinary failure to explain how Darwinian means could have evolved certain complex biochemical systems, ignoring critical details seems to be a common problem.)