Arguing Against Intelligent Design

[Biochemist]

Hmmm. I think I would like to take IN's argument and attack it (just for fun) to get a little more focus here. IN's argument is fundamentaly fair, but I would like to see if we can tune an argument that sticks more closely to a scientific discourse

Look into the term abiogenesis. Abiogenesis today consists of many different theories. Protocells are one. RNA World is another. They are all based on chemistry. When you come across a person who tries to make evolution equal abiogenesis, they are not really talking about evolution, no matter how vehemently they scream that they are. Instead, they are arguing atheism vs. theism... they are using what is known as god-of-the-gaps theology.

I don't think it is reasonable to build a generic invalid straw-man and then disassemble it to build strength for an opposing argument.

As per irreducible complexity' date=' that is supposed to be a falsification of natural selection according to ID, but it has been shown that Behe used a strawman version of natural selection and that natural selection can produce any complex biological structure[/quote']I am not sure that Behe meant to falsify natural selection. He just offered a set of examples where selection seemed implausible. His examples are reasonable. Informed observers might elect to side with or against, but the arguments and examples are plausible. Further, it would be fairer to say that it has been suggested that natural selection might produce a complex biological structure, not the it has shown that it can. Actual examples of explicit natural selection are extremely rare, and none are "shown." All are argued.

I could go on. You'll also notice that I support my assertions with citations, and I am not arguing against their position to prove mine. My position proves itself.

Au contraire, this did not "prove" anything. It might indicate something, or be consistent with something.

 

But it was a good post, IN.

[Biochemist]

As per irreducible complexity, that is supposed to be a falsification of natural selection according to ID, but it has been shown that Behe used a strawman version of natural selection and that natural selection can produce any complex biological structure

 

A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution.

This link is a descriptive classification reference. It does not describe explicitly how natural selection can produce a complex biological structure. It just gives it a label if it did.

Another funny thing that has been shown over the past several years is that natural selection itself is pretty good at getting design. Here is a very quality example of that:

 

genetic-programming.com-Home-Page

I thought this was a better proof case for ID than for natural selection. The rules of the game (which are mediated my software engineers) suggest 1) an overriding objective at the outset, 2) managers of the process, and 3) complex tools (both in terms of initial work product and infrastructure to process the product).

 

This is the framework for ID.

[InfiniteNow]

I thought this was a better proof case for ID than for natural selection. The rules of the game (which are mediated my software engineers) suggest 1) an overriding objective at the outset, 2) managers of the process, and 3) complex tools (both in terms of initial work product and infrastructure to process the product).

 

This is the framework for ID.

 

Interesting take, however, my argument didn't rest on the idea or process of modelling natural selection programmatically. That link was brought in only to support the concept of evolution by natural selection itself, which The D.S.'s friend was challenging. That link demonstrated how the concept applies beyond just the biological. Had I simply argued using that link as proof against ID, then I'd be forced to concede your point above, but I wasn't, so I won't. :doh:

[Rade]

To argue against ID you could ask:

 

1. While it is true that all buildings have a builder, do we then conclude that all builders are intelligent ? Consider the bee hive--do we conclude that the bees are intelligent because they build a hive ? The caddisfly larva builds a house of small stones to live in--do we say a fly larva is intelligent because it builds a home for itself? What we conclude from this line of thinking is that, just because a thing is built, this does not mean the builder was intelligent.

 

2. While it is true that all cars have a maker, do we then conclude that all makers are intelligent ? The DNA molecule has the ability to make exact copies of itself, do we say the DNA is intelligent ? A male pea plant and a female pea plant can make a new plant via a seed, do we say the pea plants are intelligent ? What we conclude here is that, just because a thing is made, this does not mean the maker is intelligent.

 

Thus, it is clear from the evidence of the senses that not all design is intelligent--this is the message of the theory of natural selection, that life derives from un-intelligent design. You could say that what is built-made by nature is always via un-intelligent design, whereas what is build-made by humans is usually (not always) via intelligent design.

 

You could also ask your friend--how intelligent would it be to design virues that kill millions of humans each year, especially if you also claimed that humans were someone you loved ? How intelligent would it be to put into place a system where a small child must be hated, beaten, debased, raped, so that the actor could ask for forgiveness to ensure everylasting place in heaven ?

[ughaibu]

1. All buildings have a builder.

2. All cars have a maker.

3. All paintings have a painter.

So, all humans must have a designer, and so must the world?

I like numbers 1 and 3.

1. All buildings have a builder.

2. All paintings have a painter.

So, all humans must have a (sense of) humour, therefore ID is a joke.

 

The problem with ID is that it has no explanatory value as it identifies neither the designer nor the method of production, in short, ID appeals to an unknown entity/substance and an unknown process. We can produce an infinite number of at least no worse non-explantions as follows:

ID is explanation 1, explanation 2 involves unknown entities/substances and unknown processes but has nothing in common with explanation 1, explanation n+1 involves unknown entities/substances and unknown processes but has nothing in common with explanations 1,2....n, thus ID is infinitely unlikely to be correct.

[Biochemist]

The problem with ID is that it has no explanatory value as it identifies neither the designer nor the method of production, in short, ID appeals to an unknown entity/substance and an unknown process. ...

This is a commonly held view, and I understand the perspective.

 

I have been posting in two threads concurrently (also in the thread about teaching evolution in schools), so I might be a little redundant. I apologize if I am. I think one could argue that ID does offer an explanatory issue. I am frankly not sure whether Behe ever did, but I will give it a shot.

 

Let me offer a couple of general notions, and then get back to the specifics of ID:

 

1) Whenever we look at the detail of nature (biology, chemistry, astronomy, physics, etc) it always seems to get more complex the more we know. That is the "Occam's razor" approach does not seem to hold up well over time

2) The degree of complexity is high enough that simple data becomes incredibly complex to interpret. When we get closer to the real answer, we often really don't like it. Think of the quantum physics problem with light as both particle and wave. Or particles taking "all paths" to get from point A to point B. These are VERY complex answers to explain the straightforward experimental data. We spend years trying to deny the data because it does not make sense. Then the answer arrives and it is ugly.

 

Back to ID. The simple fossil data suggests phases of history (as reflected in Punctuated Equilibrium theory) where phyla show up suddenly. It looks like this happens after sudden, serious debacles where large populations of life forms are eradicated. We know (for a fact, by standard genetic behavior) that small populations of sexually reproductive species are more likely than large populations to express recessive alleles.

 

Hence the question. In the Cambrian explosion, we suddenly went from 3 to 70 animal phyla in, what, 300 million years. Where did all of those recessive alleles come from? They were not (apparently) previously expressed. And we are now down to 30 phyla or so. Something interesting happened, and it does not fit in with gradual, serial mutation.

 

The "simple" explanation is that the alleles (or the allele progenitors) were always there. The implications are troublesome, but the interpretation is pretty straightforward.

[ughaibu]

I think one could argue that ID does offer an explanatory issue

But nothing in your post tells me what design is or how it works, it says no more than that there remain things that are unexplained. Even if one can demonstrate irreducible inexplicability, there is still no indication of design from this alone and nothing is explained, about the irreducibly inexplicable, by mooting design.

[Biochemist]

But nothing in your post tells me what design is or how it works...

My hypothesis is that the general model for speciation is that the design of the daughter species is in the DNA of the parent species. This does not mean all of the alleles preexist in the parent. It means that the parent species had the propensity to alter DNA to create the daughter species.

 

We are already aware of multiple mechanisms for DNA to self-reconfigure (e.g., transposons, etc). We tend to characterize these well-organized behaviors as "mutations", even though there is weak evidence to suggest that is the case. I think they are preset propensities, not mutations.

 

This is not idle conjecture, nor is it easy to test.

[InfiniteNow]

ughaibu raises an interesting point. Biochemist, you seem to be arguing FOR the idea that some things are not yet explained fully, NOT that something intelligent designed them.

 

Showing there are gaps in evolutionary theory which need filling does not by default prove the ID conjecture to be correct. It's a false dichotomy.

[Buffy]

We are already aware of multiple mechanisms for DNA to self-reconfigure (e.g., transposons, etc). We tend to characterize these well-organized behaviors as "mutations", even though there is weak evidence to suggest that is the case. I think they are preset propensities, not mutations.

Just to do a little catch up on past arguments here:

 

You are EITHER arguing then that there cannot be a relationship between mutations and the triggering of transposons, or you are arguing that current Evolutionary theory is wedded to an ancient interpretation of Gradualism--that is, all changes occur via single mutations in expressed genes.

 

However your argument really supports what Eldredge and Gould describe of mutations building up in unexpressed genes which under environmental stress become much more likely to transpose themselves with their compatriot transposons resulting in very significant morphological changes in short time spans, very few of which may be necessary in sequence to cause speciation.

 

While this may be called "conjecture" because it has not been directly observed occurring "in the wild," current investigations are showing lots of interesting and significant trails of evidence in all those transposons, something that had been overlooked for a long time because it was all considered "junk DNA" but is no longer considered so....there's fossils in them thar junk DNA....

 

Thus your theory that they are "preset propensities" is quite in the mainstream of Evolutionary theory now, environmental stresses causing mutations that trigger transpositions of highly complex and highly differentiated (but pre-tested because they passed killer mRNA muster) sequences. But even Dr. Gould found no reason to incorporate unexplainable "intelligence" in Punctuated Equilibrium...

 

We are glorious accidents of an unpredictable process with no drive to complexity, not the expected results of evolutionary principles that yearn to produce a creature capable of understanding the mode of its own necessary construction, :eek2:

Buffy

[Biochemist]

You are EITHER arguing then that there cannot be a relationship between mutations and the triggering of transposons, or you are arguing that current Evolutionary theory is wedded to an ancient interpretation of Gradualism--that is, all changes occur via single mutations in expressed genes.

I love the way your frame your arguments, Buff. This mixes two issues. The first is the definition of "mutation." My understanding is that most folks generally accept serial mutation as the primary mechanism of gradualism. (Let's disregard genetic drift as a significant mechanism for the moment). Even those folks who see "mutation" as the core mechanism do not generally accept that "mutation" is fully random, in that some types of mutations are far more likely to occur, survive, transcribe or recur (etc.) than others. This is the beginning of what I regard as a slippery slope toward "propensity". If a given genetic alteration event be is thought to be a "mutation," but the propensity for the "mutation" is a long probability from random, we have to question whether the "mutation" idea is applicable. From a pure probabilistic standpoint, a typical protein is 200-400 residues. This would mean it required 600-1200 nucleotides to specify the 200-400 codons in the DNA sequence. Most genes code for multiple proteins in a single transcription. Most proteins are fully dysfunctional of we alter more than 1-2% of their amino acid residues. Ergo, for a truly random change in a protein to result in another functional protein, the probability is miniscule. The probability is much less for multiple proteins in a single gene to be co-transcribed in the same transcription as part of the same end structure. Ergo, my understanding is that most folks who study this stuff readily accept a list of influences that substantially improve the probability of otherwise highly unlikely scenarios. My question is this: If preexisting intracellular conditions can convert a random event with probability of less than 1 in 10^50th to a probability of 1 in 10^6, is it fair to call it a "mutation"?

However your argument really supports what Eldredge and Gould describe of mutations building up in unexpressed genes which under environmental stress become much more likely to transpose themselves with their compatriot transposons resulting in very significant morphological changes in short time spans, very few of which may be necessary in sequence to cause speciation.

Yep, true. But I would emphasize that if a somewhat trivial change to a complex gene set can produce a significant change in body plan (e.g., during the Cambrian explosion), this argues against a "mutative" phenomenon, and more in favor of a "coded" phenomenon. Even more so if the complex change was never previously expressed, and hence had not had an opportunity to be "selected". That is, the genetic propensity for the daughter species was already in the parent species.

While this may be called "conjecture" because it has not been directly observed occurring "in the wild," current investigations are showing lots of interesting and significant trails of evidence in all those transposons, something that had been overlooked for a long time because it was all considered "junk DNA" but is no longer considered so....there's fossils in them thar junk DNA....

I think all the folks that made money on Junk Bonds will testify to the misuse of the term "junk."

Thus your theory that they are "preset propensities" is quite in the mainstream of Evolutionary theory now, environmental stresses causing mutations that trigger transpositions of highly complex and highly differentiated (but pre-tested because they passed killer mRNA muster) sequences.

So, if we could just get these folks to quit describing the events as "mutations," they would be essentially in agreement with the core elements of Intelligent Design. (I would have added "God forbid" in her somewhere, but that could be soooo miscontrued).

But even Dr. Gould found no reason to incorporate unexplainable "intelligence" in Punctuated Equilibrium...

Nobody is perfect. But this is really now a discussion of nomenclature, not theory. "Natural Selection" isn't a particularly good name either, but we know what it means. If we rename "Intelligent Design" to "Precoded Speciation" would you be happier? You know that I live to make you happy.

We are glorious accidents....

Well, in your case Buff, I am willing to concede the "glorious" part, but so far I am reserving acceptance of the "accident" portion.

[Buffy]

I love the way your frame your arguments, Buff. This mixes two issues.

No dear, the problem is your insistence that these "two issues" can have no possible relationship to one another, and there by create a "mystery" as to why they are correlated...

 

It was indeed the case that prior to Eldredge and Gould--back when you were in school--that the conventional wisdom was "classical gradualism" but your continued insistence that this continues to represent the majority opinion of the Evolutionary biology community is, to be charitable, misleading.

 

Lets take a closer look....

The first is the definition of "mutation." My understanding is that most folks generally accept serial mutation as the primary mechanism of gradualism.

In this case "gradualism" could refer to either "gradual genetic change" or "gradual morphological change." The former is still considered the primary mechanism for "change over time" where "over time" is non specific. The latter refers to the "old theory" that Punctuated Equilibrium has clearly and decisively overturned.

Even those folks who see "mutation" as the core mechanism do not generally accept that "mutation" is fully random, in that some types of mutations are far more likely to occur, survive, transcribe or recur (etc.) than others.

Certainly, however what you are doing here is "introducing the mystery" by trying to say that "mutations" must be accepted and survive "randomly" or that the mechanisms that do this "likely to occur, survive" are somehow mysteriously directed.

 

Current studies in RNA have exposed all sorts of interesting purposes for them that do this "directing" but their evolution and purpose is no longer considered "mysterious."

 

The only possible way that they could be considered "mysterious" is if one ascribed their evolution to something entirely different than Evolutionary, "survival of the fittest" changes over time: mRNA kills off really bad mutations because that helps the survival of the species.

 

To try to separate these issues is to both ignore the past 30 years of Evolutionary Science as well as be quite selective in ones definitions.

This is the beginning of what I regard as a slippery slope toward "propensity".

No, its simply saying that RNA is now recognized as a countervailing mechanism that has evolved in codependence with DNA.

 

There's nothing mysterious about this, although, to anticipate your (previously stated long ago) objection, no we don't understand *everything* about the intervening steps, or even everything about how they interact even now, but the macro "purpose" is quite clearly based on encoded mechanisms that do what they do because they've evolved that way, and we can see even from the most basic understanding of biochemical reactions why they would over time evolve these qualities even based on random recombination without "mysterious direction."

Most proteins are fully dysfunctional of we alter more than 1-2% of their amino acid residues. Ergo, for a truly random change in a protein to result in another functional protein, the probability is miniscule.

Only if you insist on these changes happening "all at once": something that is *not* required by Punctuated Equilibrium, which only posits that changes accelerate due to environmental stresses, not that these changes occur in a single generation from a single mutation.

 

This is *your* interpretation of PE and does not at all conform to what Eldredge, Gould or any of their supporters have ever insisted upon as a necessary requirement to support PE. So your statement that:

Ergo, my understanding is that most folks who study this stuff readily accept a list of influences that substantially improve the probability of otherwise highly unlikely scenarios.

...is unfortunately, again to be charitable, a misunderstanding of their theories. I doubt you could get any of them to say that either the "list of influences" is unexplainable, nor that the changes are "highly unlikely."

My question is this: If preexisting intracellular conditions can convert a random event with probability of less than 1 in 10^50th to a probability of 1 in 10^6, is it fair to call it a "mutation"?

Of course it wouldn't, but this is only an issue if you insist upon saying that "mutation" is not controlled by other easily explainable evolutionary factors, and if mutation is simply a "long sequence of dice rolls that turn out exactly right" which they are not if you simply realize--as current Evolutionary Science describes--that changes in Transposons--entire coded sequences--are expressed as recessive changes that are tested over time before they become dominant and can build up large changes in morphological characteristics.

 

I know you don't want to think about that, but its the essence of your misunderstanding of the current state of Evolutionary Science.

 

So please think about this when you say

But I would emphasize that if a somewhat trivial change to a complex gene set can produce a significant change in body plan (e.g., during the Cambrian explosion), this argues against a "mutative" phenomenon, and more in favor of a "coded" phenomenon.

Trying to insist that "mutation" and "coding" are mutually exclusive mechanisms is--again to be charitable--simply the old way of thinking that went out the window with Eldredge and Gould.

 

So,

But this is really now a discussion of nomenclature, not theory. "Natural Selection" isn't a particularly good name either, but we know what it means. If we rename "Intelligent Design" to "Precoded Speciation" would you be happier?

No, its more evidence that you want to make sure that "random mutation" means a pure sequence of *unrelated* dice rolls that results in an "impossibly unlikely sequence" rather than seeing that the many *non-DNA* components--RNA, proteins in cell protoplasm, chemical makeups of environments, etc. etc. etc--all work together through a feedback mechanism that uses Transposons to "experiment" endlessly before a flood of morphological changes are unleashed by events like, say, Global Warming!

 

I know you just like to play Devil's Advocate, Bio. It sure makes for great intellectual calisthenics, but its also nice to know that at least half the time you don't believe a word you say! :phones:

 

But whats puzzling you is the nature of my game, :)

Buffy

[Biochemist]

No dear..

I love it when you call me "dear."

It was indeed the case that prior to Eldredge and Gould--back when you were in school--that the conventional wisdom was "classical gradualism" but your continued insistence that this continues to represent the majority opinion of the Evolutionary biology community is, to be charitable, misleading.

This is great to hear. Because the last time (2006?)you and I had a similar discussion, you were still in the camp of defending the "classic" view. It seems you have had some sort of conversion.

In this case "gradualism" could refer to either "gradual genetic change" or "gradual morphological change." The former is still considered the primary mechanism for "change over time" where "over time" is non specific. The latter refers to the "old theory" that Punctuated Equilibrium has clearly and decisively overturned.

And I am pretty sure that 2 years ago, you (yes you, or was that some other Buffy?) were still advocating the (valid) position that the fossil record is intrinsically incomplete, ergo the uneven fossil record that supports the PE conclusion is itself inaccurate. You are now saying that the PE subtheory has decisively overturned phenotypical gradualism?

The only possible way that they could be considered "mysterious" is if one ascribed their evolution to something entirely different than Evolutionary, "survival of the fittest" changes over time: mRNA kills off really bad mutations because that helps the survival of the species.

I love the way you drag in "mysterious" here. I am merely taking a data-driven position. You are saying that PE decisively overturned phenotypical gradualism (which, by the way, is THE core tenet of Darwinian Evolution- This means you are not longer Darwinian). Fine. So now we have gradualism mediated by some complex behavior of mRNA that selectively targets "bad" mutations. How might the mRNA know which mutations are "bad" unless they are expressed? It seems to me you have to fish or cut bait here. Either the genes got expressed and advantaged the offspring through an advantageous phenotype, or the "advantageous" gene was selected through prior coding-level specifity. Which is it?

No, its simply saying that RNA is now recognized as a countervailing mechanism that has evolved in codependence with DNA.

It does not matter to me where the coding resides. If the genetic code of the parent species (in genes, RNA, junk DNA or otherwise) specifies any significant preference for the genome of the daughter species, it was precoded, and it is not a mutative phenomenon.

There's nothing mysterious about this....we can see even from the most basic understanding of biochemical reactions why they would over time evolve these qualities even based on random recombination without "mysterious direction."

I am lost again. You said above that somehow (through an unknown mechanism) mRNA can take out "bad" mutations before they cause damage. I suspect that is true. The question is how it would not take out the good ones. If the mRNA has a predilection for a "good" change, it is not a mutation by definition.

Only if you insist on these changes happening "all at once": something that is *not* required by Punctuated Equilibrium, which only posits that changes accelerate due to environmental stresses, not that these changes occur in a single generation from a single mutation.

Sure, PE does not require it, but biochemistry does. If anything but the very tiniest fraction of genomic changes were actually transcribed, the majority (the vast, vast, vast majority) of the volume of protein in the cell would be trash protein, and that would kill the cell eventually, just through energy consumption requirements alone. Since the reverse is objectively true (the vast, vast majority of protein in the cell is fully functional for some purpose) then it appears that genomic changes only get transcribed if they are functional. Ergo, it really looks like the plain interpretation of the data suggests that the genome of the parent species specifies the most likely changes that result in a daughter species. This is antithetical both to the core tenets of Natural Selection and hence Darwinian Evolution. Are you saying you have rejected Natural Selection?

...this is only an issue if you insist upon saying that "mutation" is not controlled by other easily explainable evolutionary factors...

Hmmm. I am arguing that if a genomic change is likely, it is, by definition, not a mutation at all. We should quit calling it that.

...if you simply realize--as current Evolutionary Science describes--that changes in Transposons--entire coded sequences--are expressed as recessive changes that are tested over time before they become dominant...

I am pretty sure you suggested above they were not tested over time. They are not expressed phenotypically to be tested. The mRNA kills the "bad' changes and the good ones show up. If you will concede that this propensity results in a smaller number of more dramatic morphological changes, then we are agreeing. (!)

 

...And that means you are accepting that the majority of code for a daughter species pre-exists in the parent species.

Trying to insist that "mutation" and "coding" are mutually exclusive mechanisms is--again to be charitable--simply the old way of thinking that went out the window with Eldredge and Gould.

I am suggested that nothing you have said suggested any role for mutation. I am not saying mutation is precluded. I am saying there is minimal objective data that suggests the role of mutation is material.

...you want to make sure that "random mutation" means a pure sequence of *unrelated* dice rolls....rather than seeing that the many *non-DNA* components--RNA, proteins in cell protoplasm, chemical makeups of environments, etc. etc. etc--all work together.....

Buff, this is all still coding, not mutation. I don't care whether the coding is in genes, in non-gene DNA or in some other even-more-complex coding source. None of this suggests a mutative mechanism.

..whats puzzling you is the nature of my game

Oh, you are such a tease. But please don't stop.

[Biochemist]

...It was indeed the case that prior to Eldredge and Gould--back when you were in school--that the conventional wisdom was "classical gradualism"....

So when were you in school? Had you completed school by 1972?

 

(such a subtle technique to solicit your age, isn't it?)

[TheFaithfulStone]

I had this argument over lunch the other day with somebody - they started with the "bag full of watch parts" argument. Shaking them up doesn't net you a watch.

 

Here's the thing though.

 

A) 4 Billion years is a loooong time. You may think it takes a long time to get down to the druggist on the corner, but that's peanuts compared to how long 4 Billion years is.

 

:Glasses: You don't actually have to build a watch. Think about all the other stuff you could do with gears, and pinions and other watch parts. Shake up the bag and eventually you WILL have two things that go together. Those two things get to STAY together. Also - keep adding watch parts to the bag. Keep shaking for 4 Billion years. (Did I mention how long 4 Billion years is?)

 

At the end of 4 Billion years - you might not have a watch - but you'd have something that'd be pretty neat.

 

Now, real evolution is actually even easier. Let's say for instance that you have a bag full of watch-like thingamajigs that you've shaken into existence over the last 4 Billion years. At the end of every couple of shakes, you reach in and find the one that keeps the worst time and destroy it. Pretty soon, all of your watches keep better and better time. That's gradualism, but it would take a long time to make a good watch that way.

 

Let's say you're shaking the watch-bag twice a second, and you've got a fairly good collection of tiny little proto-watches in there. There's not a lot of room - so the watches just kind try to maintain. No reason to get any bigger. But - the bag is getting kind of heavy. You reach in and pull out a big handful of squirmy proto-watches, bouncing around, ticking up a cute little storm. Then you squish them all. Now, you'll get some of the "good watches" and some of the "bad watches" this way - but the watches that can dodge your hand the fastest will get away.

 

Now your bag is lighter and you can shake it more. There's a lot more room for the remaining watches now - so they'll bounce around more - finding (and making) new parts faster and faster.

 

Now of course, all analogies are incomplete, since they are in fact analogies, but I think you get the picture. There's two fundamental assumption that the "Blind Watchmaker" makes that are untenable.

 

1) That you have any idea how long 4 Billion Years is.

2) That you're making a watch in the first place.

 

As it turns out, if the monkeys know the rules of the game - it doesn't take them long at all to crank out Shakespeare

 

Or, you know, weasels.

 

TFS

[Biochemist]

I had this argument over lunch the other day with somebody - they started with the "bag full of watch parts" argument. Shaking them up doesn't net you a watch.....There's two fundamental assumption that the "Blind Watchmaker" makes that are untenable.

 

1) That you have any idea how long 4 Billion Years is.

2) That you're making a watch in the first place.

 

As it turns out, if the monkeys know the rules of the game - it doesn't take them long at all to crank out Shakespeare

Thanks, TFS

 

We have vented on this argument before, and I frankly don't mind taking either position. Above, I mentioned that the critique of (or defense of) this argument is a probabilistic one. That is, we need to crunch the probability of a large number of possibilities against a long period of time.

 

When we do this (as has been done on Hypography several times, including here:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/biology/5505-statistical-probability-issues-speciation.html

 

The gist of this old thread is that the "random" model produces a statistical probability of about zero (give or take). Ergo, most folks who subscribe to the viability of a serial-mutation model concede that in order to this to work, something in the state of nature had to significantly reduce the odds.

 

The problem is that if "something" reduces the odds "too much" it doesn't look like "mutation" anymore.

 

If you really want to advocate this line of thought, go plow through the old thread and come back with something to visit about in this one.

 

Bio

[Ahmabeliever]

Hehe

 

I love analogies as I lack enough scientific language to express myself here.

 

I am hoping Bio-chemist has watched the court case, and the explanation of parental genes merging, even I followed it.

 

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS

 

This thread is fantastic. Never has my understanding of the 'evolution of evolutionary theory' been clearer.