Arguing Against Intelligent Design

[Biochemist]

Right, that god did it. It seems no matter how you look at it, God is ultimately responsible in your eyes, no? You can dance around it in your discussions here, but that's really where you are with this isn't it?

It seems you took my point a little bit backwards. My point is that I don't really care how it was done.

No matter how weak you claim mutative evidence to be, there will always be more evidence in support of it, or any other natural explantation, than supporting an all powerful supernatural creator.

Well, I think God is "natural". I am just looking at evidence to decipher a mechanism. I don't shy away from evidence that suggest a theistic solution (or otherwise, for that matter).

To me, it makes far more sense that an all powerful god would create life similar to what is described in Genesis, than to turn loose a microscopic organism with only the potential of life in a hostile primordial soup to cook for billions of years, only to have an approximately 99.99% failure rate in the form of extinction.

Sure. But we are not talking about (I don't think) what might have made sense for God to have done. We are looking at evidence and trying to interpret it.

If the goal of God, with the creation of life, is to arrive at his blessed human children, why not just create Adam whole as the bible describes.

Well, if we are going that far, I think God could have made this a whole lot simpler if humans just reproduced by budding. It avoids that whole moral/sex problem. Good thing I was not in charge.

As I read your arguments you keep arriving at the same conclusion: It's just too complicated and improbable to have happened naturally the way contemporary science tries to explain it.

I am not saying it was too complicated. I am saying that there was not enough time. I continue to advocate that someone produce a probabilistic model that gets the probability down to something reasonable (like one in a billion), but I don't think anyone has tried it.

But you aren't seeking a natural alternative. You favor the idea that the first elements of life were prepackaged with all the information necessary to produce all of the complex life forms to follow.

I think ALL alternatives are 'natural'. I am not "favoring" an idea out of a bias. I think I "favor" the idea that is best supported by evidence. And I think that a lot of smart folks will avoid the position (and take the view that is less supported by evidence) because it might appear to be theistic. I think that is their problem.

This is the premise of Intelligent Design, which, no matter how you slice it, points to a supernatural creator as the explanation for what initially provided this inherent information.

Why should a scientist care if that is true?

A supernatural creator as an explanation is not falsifiable, and is therefore an explanation that is not scientific.

Agreed. But I am suggesting a mechanism that is falsifiable. What does that have to do with me?

[HydrogenBond]

One of the vulnerabilities of evolutionary theory, that opens evolutionary theory to challenges, such as ID, is its inability to predict the future with any certainty. It is good theory for correlating the past, but we can not use this correlation to extrapolate to the future. An analogy is making a correlation for gravity, that allows us to include any after fact data. But sadly, we can't use it to predict whether this particular rock will keep going up or will it also come down. After it happens then we can include this data.

 

The current version of evolutionary theory is far too dependent on chance and not enough on logical deductions. Being based on chance it become analogous to a gambling system based on historical data. The line goes through the curve fitting all this data. But once we bring it to the casino to make some future money, like all gambling systems it is not perfect, since by nature of chance, there is a 50-50 chance it won't work. The future area of doubt is sensed by many. It opened the door for ID.

 

I am not saying ID is a better system, The only point I was making was the inability to use either system to predict the future shows both have something in common. That is, neither is fully rational. It is easier to point out the flaws in ID, since many of its assumptions don't equate to science but require faith. Evolutionary theory uses assumptions that make use of acceptable science and math, but once you put it all together, we depend on faith that nobody will notice it can't rationally predict the future.

 

From Wikipedia

 

Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

 

The specific principles of reason and future prediction or testing of hypothesis, are vulnerabilities in evolutionary theory.

[InfiniteNow]

I think what this boils down to is how science has never found an outside intelligence yet needed in its description of nature.

 

Everything that once was thought to be caused by unnatural or supernatural or extra-natural processes (ie spirits make trees grow, gods make the planets move through the sky, Zeus causes lightning etc.) these things have all been taken away from intelligences other than our own. When something is too complex or too unlikely to be natural - it ends up being explained with natural laws.

 

Intelligent design is meaningless and broken without a creator (an intelligence other than human - an 'x-factor'). Is ID going to be the first time an equation of science gets an x-factor? Is this the thing that stops the trend? No. ID is a very small objection to something that works very well. As sure as lightning was taken from the hand of Zeus and given to science - so will the origin of the species.

 

And, I don't think science excludes an x-factor. If our world had been different we may have found A + B + 'the hand of god' = C. But, we have never found that. To assume this is where it'll be found is just betting against all probability.

 

-modest

 

Superb post. I have to spread it around first before offering it again, hence my comment to you here in the open. Very well said. :)

[HydrogenBond]

The part of ID I like, is the basic overall schema, if we factor out the meta physical aspects. What it implies, if we ignore the Divine aspects, is bringing atoms together, directly, quickly, using a type of universal principle. The only way we could approximate this with science, would be to do it logically so it comes together in an orderly way in the quickest possible time. If we try to do this with chance and chaos, such as evolution, one will always finish second to this logical approximation. The fact of the matter is chance is an approximation for basic logic if you can't reason it out.

 

To test which basic philosophy approximation is closer to reality, one needs to look at the finish product to see if it functions logically or randomly. It is a blend of both, being maybe 90% logical and 10% random. These numbers are guesses with 90% low, improving as science improves.

 

If we compare the two basic schemas we get a logical approximation of metaphysical leading to life that is mostly logical. Or we get a random approximation of logic leading to life that is mostly logical. The first makes more sense. The first says we start with a box of blocks and built a house by the quickest path. We are humans working with physical laws. But it still needs to be done logically and systematically for the approximation. The second says we throw the blocks in the air and part of the house magically falls into place. We pick up the pieces that don't fit in and throw these in the air, until more stick. When we are done our house looks like the one boy genius built. He did his with extreme logic so he finishes first. While he is napping, the other is still throwing blocks in the air hoping to approximate the fruit of logic.

 

I don't agree with ID in terms of the details but I like the principle of its approach. It is trying to show extreme logic that is so organized it builds perfectly in the first try in record time. The best humans can do is take this hint and try our best to do it logically, but within the time frame that we are given. The random approach tries to approximate basic logic, since that is the majority of the final product evolution always tries for.

[REASON]

One of the vulnerabilities of evolutionary theory, that opens evolutionary theory to challenges, such as ID, is its inability to predict the future with any certainty. It is good theory for correlating the past, but we can not use this correlation to extrapolate to the future.

 

I don't understand. :)

 

Why wouldn't Artificial Selection or Selective Breeding serve as examples where desirable traits are purposely selected for to achieve a predictable outcomes in plant varieties and animal breeds? We do it all the time.

 

We even have a pretty comfortable understanding of how it works at a genetic level, do we not?

[REASON]

It seems you took my point a little bit backwards. My point is that I don't really care how it was done.

 

I realize that. You don't care because in your mind, either way comes up God. At least that's how you presented it.

 

Don't get me wrong, I make no condemnation regarding your personal sense of faith. If you are satisfied with arriving at a faithful explanation for something, it is your business. All I'm saying is, it isn't scientific.

 

 

Well, I think God is "natural". I am just looking at evidence to decipher a mechanism. I don't shy away from evidence that suggest a theistic solution (or otherwise, for that matter).

 

Well, you can think what you want, but there is no evidence that suggests a theistic solution because there is no way to confirm it's veracity. Therefore, seeing evidence where there is none suggests that your observance is guided by preference.

 

 

But we are not talking about (I don't think) what might have made sense for God to have done. We are looking at evidence and trying to interpret it. Well, if we are going that far, I think God could have made this a whole lot simpler if humans just reproduced by budding. It avoids that whole moral/sex problem. Good thing I was not in charge.

 

From where I stand, it doesn't require human budding to avoid any moral/sex problem. There's nothing immoral about consentual sex. Something like infidelity is really about the immorality of dishonesty and betrayal rather than sex. Want of sex is natural, as is want of variety. We often use notions of morality in an attempt to control natural instincts and behaviors.

 

 

I am not "favoring" an idea out of a bias. I think I "favor" the idea that is best supported by evidence. And I think that a lot of smart folks will avoid the position (and take the view that is less supported by evidence) because it might appear to be theistic. I think that is their problem. Why should a scientist care if that is true?

 

Are you really going to state here that the evidence actually supports ID, and all the scienteists dedicated to the studies of evolutionary principles are actually arriving at their conclusions because they are atheists in avoidance of evidence that appears theistic?

 

C'mon! That's outlandish and you know it. If that doesn't exemplify your bias I don't know what else would.

 

 

But I am suggesting a mechanism that is falsifiable. What does that have to do with me?

 

While the mechanism you are suggesting may be falsifiable, the origin of your mechanism isn't.

[modest]

I continue to advocate that someone produce a probabilistic model that gets the probability down to something reasonable (like one in a billion), but I don't think anyone has tried it.I think ALL alternatives are 'natural'. I am not "favoring" an idea out of a bias.

 

This seems backwards to me. You can’t beat the probabilities until you explain what the probabilities beat.

 

Let me think how to explain this... also, I’m sure I’m regurgitating something from one of the other many threads on evolution which I haven’t read through, nevertheless:

 

For your objection to work we have to assume the current state of things (or the past state at a particular time) is the desired outcome. It is not. The universe didn’t line itself up to create life on earth or humans. Here is another objection exactly like yours that doesn’t work:

 

For humanity to exist everything must be finely tuned. The speed of light must be exactly what it is. The gravitational constant, hubble’s constant, the ratio of matter to other things, and a million other fine-tuned parameters must be set just right or there would be no life on Earth. Therefore, an intelligence created the universe for humans. Right? - No. The one doesn’t follow the other, and here’s why:

 

That assumes the current state is the desired state. If you flip a coin a billion times and record each result then you will get a long list of heads and tales. What are the chances the list would look like it does when it’s finished? The probability would be [imath]1/2^{10^9}[/imath] which is just absolutely ridiculously small. Too small for a calculator to handle. Does this mean when we’re done flipping we are surprised by the results? No - only if we were predicting the outcome at the onset is it surprising.

 

Intelligent design and your ideas Biochem have an intelligence at the onset setting things in motion predicting the outcome. Therefore it is YOUR theory that must explain the probabilities. ID expects an outcome where natural selection does not suppose the current state is special. So, I’m sure the chances life has evolved the way it has is much lower than one in a billion which you want to see. There is no way to calculate the chances humanity would end up here. Yet, here we are beating any prediction that could have been made at the onset - which is a hurdle for ID and not natural selection.

 

Seems to me in any case.

 

-modest

[Eclogite]

Are you really going to state here that the evidence actually supports ID, and all the scienteists dedicated to the studies of evolutionary principles are actually arriving at their conclusions because they are atheists in avoidance of evidence that appears theistic?

 

C'mon! That's outlandish and you know it. If that doesn't exemplify your bias I don't know what else would.

Newton and every other scientist of his time worked with a paradigm that saw the Earth as a creation of God. That changed over time towards a naturalistic paradigm, in which supernatural intervention played no role.

 

However, a point that is often overlooked by those who work as scientists (but not by philosophers and historians of science) is that this naturalistic paradigm is a methodological one rather than an intrinsic one. In different words, science does not deal with God or the supernatural because it declares itself unable to do so. Science does not deny the existence of God, but declares that God (absent or present) is incidental to the pursuit of scientifc enquiry.

 

There is nothing within science that prohibits the investigation of God, or of intelligent design other than the decision that such investigation is unecessary. Biochemist is saying that many scientists - including some very smart scientists - have taken the decision to adopt a particular paradigm (methodological naturalism) to be based upon an absolute truth, rather than on a practical convenience. That, under another name, is dogma.

 

I wonder, with biochemist, whether we may not be ignoring or misinterpreting certain data purely because they do not agree with the current paradigm. Some of these data are suggestive of a missing factor. You - and others - have rightly noted that in any scientific theory there are always areas of dispute and uncertainty. These are typically resolved eventually. However, to declare - as an absolute - that the conveniently chosen methodological naturalism is also an absolute naturalism is, as I said before, dogma and as such should be eliminated from any scientific investigation.

 

Personally, I am uncomfortable* with only one thing within evolution sensuo stricto and that is the Cambrian explosion. I am also uncomfortable with the time span available for abiogenesis. I think fully naturalistic explanations for these may well be found. The Cambrian explosion may turn out to be an inevitable emergence of complexity out of systems on the verge of chaos, in a manner similar to Thunderbird's suggestions. (Though I think he is wide of the mark, since his mechanisms seem to require full blown Lamarkianism.) The answer to abiogenesis in such a short time span may be accounted for either in the same manner, or by pan spermia.

 

But I do not rule out the plausibility of intelligent design acting through predefined emergent properties being the cause of either, or both. If we reject the possibility from the outset we shall find it very difficult to see it if it is true. In this regard I view the efforts of Creationists diguised as Intelligent Design advocates as a serious obstacle to proper research, since it almost guaruntees a kneejerk reaction from scientists to any discussion of intelligent design, even when it is written without capitals.

 

*I have previously been accused of Argument from Incredulity when stating I am uncomfortable with something. I use it as code for 'I have looked at the evidence and data in this matter. Not only do I find the discrepancies and irregularities that are generally recognised, but in addition I conclude there is not sufficient evidence to warrant calling the proposed explanations anything other than speculations.'

[Biochemist]

I realize that. You don't care because in your mind, either way comes up God. At least that's how you presented it.

That is fair.

Well, you can think what you want, but there is no evidence that suggests a theistic solution because there is no way to confirm it's veracity.

This seems backwards again. I am not suggesting a "theistic solution." I just don't rule out solutions that might appear theistic, if the evidence points that direction. TO do otherwise is not scientific.

Are you really going to state here that the evidence actually supports ID, and all the scienteists dedicated to the studies of evolutionary principles are actually arriving at their conclusions because they are atheists in avoidance of evidence that appears theistic?

Heavens, no. But both groups of scientists are extremely heterogeneous. And many scientists default to a solution that is atheistic.

C'mon! That's outlandish and you know it. If that doesn't exemplify your bias I don't know what else would.

I am a little confused. Please identify my bias. I think it is biased to exclude a solution in the absence of evidence. To allow for all possibilities is the essence of non-bias.

While the mechanism you are suggesting may be falsifiable, the origin of your mechanism isn't.

So what? If I propose a hypothesis that is supported by evidence, and the hypothesis is falsifiable, it would qualify as "science." That is really my only point.

[Biochemist]

...this naturalistic paradigm is a methodological one rather than an intrinsic one....Biochemist is saying that many scientists - including some very smart scientists - have taken the decision to adopt a particular paradigm (methodological naturalism) to be based upon an absolute truth, rather than on a practical convenience. That, under another name, is dogma.

Agreed. And this is using the word "dogma" in the sense of "bias" versus "commonly understood framework."

I wonder, with biochemist, whether we may not be ignoring or misinterpreting certain data purely because they do not agree with the current paradigm. ...to declare - as an absolute - that the conveniently chosen methodological naturalism is also an absolute naturalism is, as I said before, dogma and as such should be eliminated from any scientific investigation.

Nicely stated.

Personally, I am uncomfortable* with only one thing within evolution sensuo stricto and that is the Cambrian explosion. I am also uncomfortable with the time span available for abiogenesis.

These are indeed two of the big data points, but let me sketch out the "Big Problem":

 

1) Abiogenesis seems fast: roughly 500 million years from small, largely inorganic constituents to prokaryote

2) The first prokaryote seems to have uncovered the single successful "life architecture" model: Exactly four DNA nuceotides, and exactly 20 amino acids. That model has not changed in 3.5 billion years. Seems odd that it never changed or "improved".

3) In a true mutation/natural selection model, the raw number of phyla and species should consistently increase based on the number of phyla and species extant. This is not the case historically. The Cambrian explosion demonstrated dramatic expansion of phyla (from about 3 to about 70) and we have subsequently lost 40.

4) The number of biochemical repair mechanisms in place to a) clear trash from the cell and :confused: repair DNA are manifold. Getting mutative processes to survive and drive speciation is problematic, particularly in eukaryotes.

 

All of this data lends itself better to a "proscribed speciation" model, rather than a mutative one.

If we reject the possibility from the outset we shall find it very difficult to see it if it is true. In this regard I view the efforts of Creationists diguised as Intelligent Design advocates as a serious obstacle to proper research, since it almost guaruntees a kneejerk reaction from scientists to any discussion of intelligent design, even when it is written without capitals.

Agreed.

[Thunderbird]

 

 

Personally, I am uncomfortable* with only one thing within evolution sensuo stricto and that is the Cambrian explosion. I am also uncomfortable with the time span available for abiogenesis. I think fully naturalistic explanations for these may well be found. The Cambrian explosion may turn out to be an inevitable emergence of complexity out of systems on the verge of chaos, in a manner similar to Thunderbird's suggestions. (Though I think he is wide of the mark, since his mechanisms seem to require full blown Lamarkianism.) The answer to abiogenesis in such a short time span may be accounted for either in the same manner, or by pan spermia.

 

 

 

I appreciate the reference, and its not the first time this paper is associated with Lamarck.

 

The Mechanisms involved suggest that the environment did play a crucial role, but these mechanisms were not known in the time of Lamarck.

 

Evolution of form is a balance of the internal and external.

 

The Cambrian episode marks the emergence of animals into the landscape of the macrocosm from the microcosm, from A-sexual to sexual reproduction.

 

This structure I describe represents a bridge linking a cyclical macro-form to a cyclical micro-chemical system.

 

The fossilized structure represents a snap shot of this transition bridge when one reverse engineers the process, and forward engineers, what can be de described as a dissipative form. Therefore this process lands squarely in the camp of emergence, or self organizing autopoitic system. My references have been many, Golden Mean chaos,

fractal forms

 

Geometric oscillators in dynamic equilibrium,

 

Quantum collapse of the wave function, Phi/Chaos dynamical symmetry

 

Phi spirals in the cellular automaton model.

 

The attractor is a Cantor Set in 4D, over time, is another means of representing Phi in phase-space at the Feigenbaum Point, on the edge of Chaos.

 

 

Autocatalytic architecture

 

 

 

This is known as the region of alternatively, Emergence, Maximum Complexity, Self-organised Criticality, Autopoiesis, or the Edge of Chaos. (Nascent science debates nomenclature routinely - and appropriately, in this case, the crucial point being that they are all different terms for essentially the same phenomena.)

Lifeforms, ecosystems, global climate, plate tectonics, celestial mechanics, human economies, history and societies, even consciousness itself - all manifest this feedback-led, reflexive behaviour; they maximise their adaptive capacities by entering this region of (maximum) complexity on the edge of Chaos, whenever they are pushed far from their equilibrium states, thereby incrementally increasing their internal complexity, between occasional catastrophes.

Remarkably, this transition zone is mathematically occupied by The Golden Mean. This ratio acts as an optimised probability operator, (a differential equation like an oscillating binary switch), whenever we observe the quasi-periodic evolution of a dynamical system. It appears in fact, to be the optimal, energy-minimising route to the region of maximum algorithmic complexity, and to be a basin of attraction for the edge of Chaos. In this review, we shall cover some demonstrations of this behaviour, and seek to understand its role.

Nigel Reading

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kaufmann's CA's place the regions of maximum complexity, islands of stable pixels surrounded by chaotic switching ones ("frozen cores" in his terminology), firmly in the self-organised critical/edge region. This behaviour, used to (accurately) predict genotypes for organisms of different complexity, results when his arrays are linked together in which each pixel responds to the input from two others, but no more or less - (less produces stasis, more increasing chaos).This period two-analogous behaviour, in what he calls his Boolean NK nets, shows Phi in action yet again: this time, in silica - as well as in the vivo of reality. His work extends to whole ecosystems, and includes the realms of fitness landscapes and simulated annealing, where robust, energy-minimising (fitness enhancing) strategies are all revealing deep links between ecology and economics.

Nigel Reading

Recursive loops (feedback), The Rössler strange attractor (essentially an archetypal picture of a Chaotic system in four dimensional phase-space, like a section through a KAM torus) is used to model autocatalytic, far from equilibrium, self-organized sets.

 

D'Arcy Thompson, Mandelbrot

 

 

This geometric evidence defines Phi then, as the optimum oscillating operator that mediates between ordered, equilibrium systems and disordered, non-equilibrium ones. It allows an oscillating orbit to access the infinitely fecund chance morphologies of Chaos, recapitulate them back into its super-stable causal orbit: and therefore permit system growth and morphogenesis. It is the paradigm for systems evolution: for the emergence of global, causal complexities from local chance simplicities - for bottom-up evolution based on hierarchies of increasing sophistication, themselves engaged in continual feedback, catastrophes and transient stability's. For Phi behaviour then, chance and causality, Chaos and Cosmos (the Greek for order), are in the tension of a dynamical equilibrium; an equilibrium that creates the unexpected and the emergent, which with each symmetry-broken hierarchy, yields transient morphologies of often increased complexity. Nigel Reading

 

Many more but never Lamarck.

[Thunderbird]

 

Personally, I am uncomfortable* with only one thing within evolution sensuo stricto and that is the Cambrian explosion. I am also uncomfortable with the time span available for abiogenesis. I think fully naturalistic explanations for these may well be found. The Cambrian explosion may turn out to be an inevitable emergence of complexity out of systems on the verge of chaos, in a manner similar to Thunderbird's suggestions. (Though I think he is wide of the mark, since his mechanisms seem to require full blown Lamarkianism.) The answer to abiogenesis in such a short time span may be accounted for either in the same manner, or by pan spermia.

 

 

Investigations into morphological origins in the Cambrian are converging in the same direction from many points simultaneous . There are important conversation on evolution going on. One example below

 

The ID vs Darwin is a debate that will never bare any fruit.

 

Also someone posted in the news section a very interesting article on the oldest and possibly one of the first multi-cellular life of the Cambrian, The cone Jelly. This is an important clue.

 

http://http://hypography.com/news/life-sciences/35496.html

 

The pieces of the puzzle or fallen together fast boys. It is a bad time to be distracted in times such as these.

 

 

 

 

Stuart Newman, The New Master Of Evolution?

Tuesday, 8 April 2008, 11:37 am

Column: Suzan Mazur

 

Further scientific investigation has revealed why, and now our nearly 150-year old evolutionary synthesis -- which has never had a coherent theory of form -- is about to get one.

 

It was thrilling and somewhat humbling to read developmental biologist Stuart Newman’s hypothesis of the evolutionary triumph of life as it self-organized half a billion years ago, using what he calls toolkit genes from single-celled highly plastic organisms to make a balletic leap into multicelluarity at the time of the Cambrian explosion when virtually all of today’s modern animal forms (35 phyla) first appeared, as evidenced in the fossil rock.

 

These toolkit genes, some of which act to mobilize basic physical forces and processes, thereby becoming what Newman calls DPMs (dynamical patterning modules) -- along with others, the DTFs (developmental transcription factors) -- performed an almost hallucinatory dance on the page as I read through his paper about a patterning language calling up certain physical processes to enable multicellular animals, i.e., metazoa about a millimeter in size to body-build – cavities, layers of tissue, segments, extremities, primitive hearts and even eyes.

 

And while the DPMs got the DTFs to arrange the matter of cell types and region functions – Newman says it was the DPMs that really provided most of the pizzazz.

 

Interestingly, Newman says this part of evolutionary history turns the Darwinian theory upside down in the sense that natural selection is not central.

 

Stuart Newman will present his paper, "Dynamical Patterning Modules: a "pattern language" for development and evolution of multicellular form", co-authored by Ramray Bhat, Newman's graduate student from the University of Calcutta, at the Altenberg "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis" symposium in July. Before that, however, the Newman/Bhat paper will debut in two publications – the International Journal of Developmental Biology and Physical Biology. Newman says it represents a synthesis of twenty years of work.

 

Stuart A. Newman is currently Professor of Cell Biology and Anatomy at New York Medical College in Vallhala, New York where he teaches and directs a research lab.

 

He has collaborated with University of Vienna theoretical biologist Gerd Müller, University of Missouri biological physicist Gabor Forgacs as well as Ramray Bhat, on aspects of his DPM theory. He has also co-authored the textbook Biological Physics of the Developing Embryo (Cambridge University Press) with Gabor Forgacs, and with Gerd Müller co-edited Origination of Organismal Form: Beyond the Gene in Developmental and Evolutionary Biology (MIT Press), a volume about the origination of body form during Ediacaran and early Cambrian periods, also contributing a few chapters to it.

 

http://http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0804/S00103.htm

[HydrogenBond]

Why wouldn't Artificial Selection or Selective Breeding serve as examples where desirable traits are purposely selected for to achieve a predictable outcomes in plant varieties and animal breeds? We do it all the time.

 

This is an example of logical design lowers the uncertainty. We are eliminating the random uncertainty making the outcome quite predictable using the laws of cause and affect This is more along the lines of what I see for evolution but with natural laws, based on cause and affect, making it evolve. But current evolution is more like take a black dog and white dog and see what happens. If it so happens someone likes one of the gray striped pups then we call that a selective advantage. It makes nature look like a blind breeder.

 

Personally, I am uncomfortable* with only one thing within evolution sensuo stricto and that is the Cambrian explosion. I am also uncomfortable with the time span available for abiogenesis. I think fully naturalistic explanations for these may well be found. The Cambrian explosion may turn out to be an inevitable emergence of complexity out of systems on the verge of chaos, in a manner similar to Thunderbird's suggestions. (Though I think he is wide of the mark, since his mechanisms seem to require full blown Lamarkianism.) The answer to abiogenesis in such a short time span may be accounted for either in the same manner, or by pan spermia.

 

If we use only random events and selective advantage, the Cambrian explosion implies random was having a hay day and nothing had much in the way of selective advantage keeping everything in flux. It amounts to the normal amount of chaos seeing its own version chaos. Another way is a logical potential with a goal in mind, creating transition affects.

 

The power of statistics is it allows us to model events that are very complex not easily subject to reason. For example, even though the bio-chemistry of the body comes down to logical explanation in terms of each small event, trying to make complex logical connections is not easy. Statistics allows us to put the unknown logic in a black box. It makes it simpler so we can still do good science and get reasonable predictions. It is quick fix until we get the logic worked out. Evolution is in the same boat. The complexity makes statistics a useful tool. The philosophical problem this has created is the black box approximation for logic obtained a life of its own and is now used in place of logic to preclude logic.

 

Here is an analogy. We want to built a logical house. It is not easy to do directly since the walls will tip over. So we build statistical scaffolding first to help give support to the logical walls. When the scaffolding became self standing, many started to forget it had a support role for logic, but started to put the siding onto the scaffolding. The logical house in the middle become obscured, ever since the scaffolding took over.

 

My approach has been to tear holes in the siding to show it is only scaffolding. It is a useful tool when logic is lacking, but does not mean that it can replace logic. We needed this scaffolding, to reach a state of logic. We still need the scaffolding, but dismantling it is a sign that the logic house is becoming more self standing.

[Moontanman]

I have been following this thread fairly closely for a while and I don't think anyone has pointed out the most obvious reason why life started in the first place.

 

Life is a natural development that occurs anytime the right conditions occur. This can happen in relatively short period of time. Like hydrogen being mixed with oxygen the results are the result of natural laws that would happen every time oxygen is mixed with hydrogen.

 

The universe is set up so that life is simply a natural chemical reaction that almost always occurs if the right conditions are met. Life is probably quite common every where these conditions are met.

 

The universe is set up this way from the start. Not because the universe was created for us but because if it wasn't this way we wouldn't be here to see it. The idea the universe was set up for us is an illusion we create because we are here. If the universe were different then there would be no debate because no one would be here to debate it!

 

Complex life on the other hand is more difficult. Very narrow limits allow it's evolution, so narrow there is doubt it is common or if it exists at all outside our Earth. The Earth was for much of it's existence too hot for the formation of complex life. Once the Earth cooled down complex life got started pretty quickly.

 

Complex life can be traced back significantly more than one billion years. Multicellular complex life can be traced back around 700 million years. Large complex life got started pretty quickly after the conditions of temps, oxygen, and nutrients were met.

 

The details of how or why this inevitably happens could be different in as many ways as the number of times as life occurs or they could be exactly the same very time. We can't know because we haven't been able to find another place where the conditions were met for the formation of complex life.

 

There could be many different ways the fine details of how complex life came into being could differ. Oolitic spheres, slow step by step evolution or what appears to us to be smart genes are just the details of something that is driven by the conditions present.

[Moontanman]

A lot of emphasis has been given the "Cambrian Explosion" and for the most part rightly so. But I think it should be given a context that is more correct than explosion.

 

The word explosion gives an impression of something that happened suddenly. As though one day there was nothing and the next you had an ocean full of complex animals. Complex life actually stretches back at least a half a billion years and maybe even longer. Complex animal life stretches back 150 million years before the explosion. A 150 million years is a long time.

 

The dinosaurs went from small insignificant scalely animals to T-Rex in that time. Mammals have come from tiny shrew like animals to blue whales in a third of that time. 700 million years ago the is evidence of Stromatolites being pushed into insignificance by tiny grazing animals too small and soft to leave anything more than traces. One hundred and fifty million years later we get lots of hard bodied animals that seem to appear suddenly. It wasn't an over night thing, there is evidence that the Cambrian Explosion was an explosion of hard parts and large size rather than just complex animals.

 

This expansion was preceded by at least one and maybe two other populations of multicellular animals. It is very possible that conditions favoring large animals allowed currently existing tiny animals to suddenly start growing in size and adding hard parts over maybe 10 to 20 million years and our explosion is really more of a fast growing fire. Yes it was quick but I don't think it was quite the miracle that many would have us believe.

 

The real question is how many different animals were really distinct lines as in did all the Cambrian animals have one common ancestor or did the animals of the Cambrian have more than one protist ancestor? If indeed only one animal that developed from one line of protist led to all the animals of the Cambrian then it becomes even more puzzling. But if several different species of protists developed into multicellular animals independent from each other then the wide variety of body plans become easier to explain. Either way the Cambrian "expansion" wasn't as fast as the word explosion would seem to indicate and the multiple body plans could be the result of multiple protist ancestors.

[Eclogite]

I appreciate the reference, and its not the first time this paper is associated with Lamarck.

 

The Mechanisms involved suggest that the environment did play a crucial role, but these mechanisms were not known in the time of Lamarck.................

Detailed discussion

Many more but never Lamarck.

I invoke Lamarck because I see no way for transferring the phenotypical change you envisage to the genotype without acquired characteristics impacting on the genotype. That is certainly Lamarckian in principle if not in detail.

[HydrogenBond]

One speculative theory for the Cambrian Explosion is connected to viral exchange. Virus can insert DNA into the DNA of a host cell. Rather than wait for a random mutation, a simple virus insertion scenario saves time allowing more options for any given time period.

 

Once the viral DNA is inserted, the cell begins to make the viral components. If you look at this situation in practical terms, instead of as a serious medical condition, what it implies the virus sort of saturating the inside of the cell with a bunch of similar protein-DNA, implicit of the DNA that was inserted. The net affect is, if there is a place for these protein in the cell, where it can just sit or maybe help the cause of the cell, it can find that spot easier, while already having DNA support in place. If the virus does not disrupt the cell, but the cell is able to adapt, and put the viral machinery on internal recycle, the cells now has new genes with a protein in place.

 

The second aspect of this scenario, is once certain viral scavenger cells were able to evolve, which can attract virus but place virus on immediate recycle, without any genetic insertion, the viral method of genetic exchange had less of an impact. But the explosion had already occurred.

 

If we took the hypothetical situation of a simple multicellular critter without an immune system, and assume some level of viral-cellular selectivity, some unstable situations can arise. All the cells are suppose to have the same DNA, but selective insertion of viral DNA implies the DNA can be different everywhere in the critter by at least a little. This is not a steady state situation. For example, say a virus caused an enlarged heart this might be passed on, not in terms of virus, but in terms of genetics.