Doesn't Natural Selection lead to Specified Complexity?

PaulK writes: quote: If drift could cause the same outcome, despite selective pressure then natural selection is a non-starter as an explanation for diversification in biological systems. You're wrong again. Just because drift COULD explain it, it doesn't mean that drift is a good explanation. Drift is not a good explanation for adaptions (but it is a warning against assuming that a feature is an adaption). We need selection to adequately explain what we observe, because drift is just too damned unlikely to come up with anything useful. Peter writes: Please note that I didn't suggest that drift was any kind of explanation for adaptation -- in fact what I said was that mutations which are operated on by natural selection must dominate adaptive changes ... to which you disagreed. quote: I cannot implicitly include drift in natural selection while I am explicitly excluding it. Indeed, you should not. That is why I object to you doing so. Peter writes: I've said several times that I am NOT including drift in natural selection. I have specifically separated it out in fact. quote: I have also said that I segregate genetic mutation from all other events -- thus they are not included in my concept of environment -- they are included in my concept of genetic mutation. I strongly suggest that you drop the idea of mutations directly causing drift to any significant extent - it's been explained to you why that is wrong often enough, by myself and Dr. Adequate. Peter writes: I have been focussing on mutation since I was attempting to discuss the way in which the 'process' of natural selection working on mutations can be seen to generate entities with apparently specified complexity. I have, therefore, disregarded the case where no mutations occur. In my simple, formulaic way I could write: Gene_Distribution[k] = NaturalSelection(Environment[k-1], Gene_Distribution[k-1]) + Drift(Gene_Distribution[k-1]) k being some quanta of time. This would cover, for example, Gallapogas (sp?) finches. I was neglecting the effect of drift for the sole purpose of discussing the capability of natural selection to 'generate' specified complexity.

Edited by Peter, : I am very poor at formatting ....

Hi Peter,

I have a feeling that some of the text in that message must be from you, but which text is yours is very hard to tell.

--Percy

Hmmm ... see what you mean. I edited it a bit to try to help.

It's still very unclear what is intended to be new text. What is clear is that this is another attempt to obscure the fact that you lumped drift and selection together, in your attempt to paint natural selection as deterministic.

Please show me how I lumped drift and natural selection together when my psuedo code specifcally separates them.

I show natural selection to be a function of environment and 'genetics' and drift to be a function of 'genetics' alone.

In what precise way does that conflate them?

My original point was that the filter which is natural selection can lead to results that are indistinguishable from Specified Complexity ... making Specified Complexity fail as an indicator of intelligent design.

quote:

---

Please show me how I lumped drift and natural selection together when my psuedo code specifcally separates them.

---

As I have already explained it was when you defined the environment as every event that occurs. And your more recent post has nothing to do with it.

You've stated that, rather than explained that.

I posit natural selection as a function of environment and gene distribution and drift as a function solely of gene distribution.

That the environment includes everything that happens was intended to mean at the same level of abstraction as 'population'.

And I still don't really see what that disagreement has to do with the concept of natural selection generating specified complexity.

quote:

---

I posit natural selection as a function of environment and gene distribution and drift as a function solely of gene distribution.

---

Then you are still wrong about drift. Drift is every CHANGE in gene distribution, not accounted for by selection. It is not predictable from gene distribution alone, even in principle.

quote:

---

That the environment includes everything that happens was intended to mean at the same level of abstraction as 'population'.

---

The full definition specified "complete and fully detailed", which cuts against that idea.

quote:

---

And I still don't really see what that disagreement has to do with the concept of natural selection generating specified complexity.

---

Then why don't you believe me when I say that it is about your determination to portray natural selection as deterministic instead ?

From the Department of Redundancy Department:

Peter writes: ...gene distribution and drift as a function solely of gene distribution.

--Percy

"Doesn't Natural Selection lead to Specified Complexity?"

Referring to the first post, to say that natural selection can lead to specified complexity simply does not make sense. Natural selection refers to the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. It refers to survival of the fittest, which is in fact quite broad rather than specific.

Natural selection has no mind, no drive, no goal...It simply happens. To say that it leads to "specified complexity" would be ridiculous because that would in fact point to an intelligence. To be short, the "specified complexity" your referring to is in fact, a figment of your imagination, it only appears to result in "specified" complexity.

Speaking as an ID supporter, I would have to point out that I'm being sarcastic. I believe that natural selection is the result of an intelligence; a result of mechanistic processes created & put in place by an intelligence for life's system to adapt & survive. As my teacher taught me in computer science (artificial intelligence), "the best system is one that is able to learn from & adapt to any scenario."

It is not simply the selection process that allows organisms to adapt & survive, but the underlying processes & mechanisms inside the organism....which just happens to be very "specific".

It refers to survival of the fittest, which is in fact quite broad rather than specific.

While the general concept of 'survival of the fittest' may be broad, the exact adaptations that confer fitness in a given context can be quite specific.

To be short, the "specified complexity" your referring to is in fact, a figment of your imagination, it only appears to result in "specified" complexity.

A lot of us would agree with you, but it is a figment created by IDists suited to produce a need for the very sort of intelligent agency you suggest.

It is not simply the selection process that allows organisms to adapt & survive, but the underlying processes & mechanisms inside the organism....which just happens to be very "specific".

This would be a good time to show some evidence suggesting this. The vast majority of evidence shows that the mechanisms creating genetic variation, basically the various different forms of mutation, are not very specific at all and that the principle constraints are applied post hoc by natural selection. For example look at experiments for the evolution of bacterial resistance where the trait can be shown to arise in cultures not exposed to the antibiotic in line with the frequency expectations of random mutation.

TTFN,

WK

As I said in message 3 it really depends on your definition of Specified Complexity. Using Dembski's idiosyncratic definition of complexity, the answer is probably not. But there is no doubt that, given the possibility of increases in complexity, natural selection will guide these in ways that would be considered to have a valid specification according to Dembski.

So, with a more normal concept of complexity there is no reasonable doubt that natural selection could produce specified complexity.

Wounded King writes: While the general concept of 'survival of the fittest' may be broad, the exact adaptations that confer fitness in a given context can be quite specific.

True, but, it is because these mechanism are specific that it points to an intelligent agent. Systems created by an intelligent agent tend to be very specific.

A lot of us would agree with you, but it is a figment created by IDists suited to produce a need for the very sort of intelligent agency you suggest.

Your not making sense here...

This would be a good time to show some evidence suggesting this. The vast majority of evidence shows that the mechanisms creating genetic variation, basically the various different forms of mutation, are not very specific at all and that the principle constraints are applied post hoc by natural selection. For example look at experiments for the evolution of bacterial resistance where the trait can be shown to arise in cultures not exposed to the antibiotic in line with the frequency expectations of random mutation.

Fair enough, though, I'll like to point out that your contradicting the first point you made here: "the exact adaptations that confer fitness in a given context can be quite specific." by saying:

"The vast majority of evidence shows that the mechanisms creating genetic variation, basically the various different forms of mutation, are not very specific at all."

As to why the underlying processes & mechanisms inside the organism are very "specific":

(1) The same mechanisms can found in many other organisms (namely ones of the same taxonomic group).

(2) Altering one of more of these mechanisms (DNA for example) can lead to the organisms death or can leave them at a major disadvantage to the environment (a deformed leg for example).

(3) These mechanisms are connected to other intricate components, these components must also be connected in a certain sequence. Without this sequence of interconnected parts the organism may die or it may not function properly.

I can go on, but this should be sufficient.

Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.

---

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. (lol!) The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.1

True, but, it is because these mechanism are specific that it points to an intelligent agent. Systems created by an intelligent agent tend to be very specific.

But so do systems created by various other means. An antibody against measles, for example, seems as specific to that virus as is a key to its lock, yet there is no intelligent agent.

Fair enough, though, I'll like to point out that your contradicting the first point you made here: "the exact adaptations that confer fitness in a given context can be quite specific." by saying: "The vast majority of evidence shows that the mechanisms creating genetic variation, basically the various different forms of mutation, are not very specific at all."

No, you're confusing two different issues; the specificity of the thing produced and the mechanisms that produce it.

Take antibodies as an analogy again. The exact antibodies conferring immunity to a given disease are very specific. The mechanisms which create them are not very specific at all; there is not one special mechanism for producing antibodies against measles and another one for mumps.

As to why the underlying processes & mechanisms inside the organism are very "specific": (1) The same mechanisms can found in many other organisms (namely ones of the same taxonomic group).

Your point here is obscure.

(2) Altering one of more of these mechanisms (DNA for example) can lead to the organisms death or can leave them at a major disadvantage to the environment (a deformed leg for example). (3) These mechanisms are connected to other intricate components, these components must also be connected in a certain sequence. Without this sequence of interconnected parts the organism may die or it may not function properly.

So the variation in these mechanisms is subject to natural selection ...

Dr Adequate writes: But so do systems created by various other means. An antibody against measles, for example, seems as specific to that virus as is a key to its lock, yet there is no intelligent agent.

Your trying to obscure "specified complexity". This thread is about natural selection possibly leading to specified complexity, saying that something is simply "specific" won't suffice, your argument is a straw man. ie an antibody protects against a specific virus (measles), therefore specified complexity can be produced without an intelligent agent.....>_>

No, you're confusing two different issues; the specificity of the thing produced and the mechanisms that produce it. Take antibodies as an analogy again. The exact antibodies conferring immunity to a given disease are very specific. The mechanisms which create them are not very specific at all; there is not one special mechanism for producing antibodies against measles and another one for mumps.

Another straw man. ie A specific antibody confers immunity against specific viruses. The specific mechanisms that create these antibodies are not specific at all because they can produce antibodies for other specific viruses as well. Therefore specified complexity is disproven

The underlying principle is that antibodies are used to counter act viruses and other foreign bodies, the mechanisms used to produce these antibodies could also be found within other organisms of the same specie. Many interconnected parts are used to create the immune system which leads to the production of different antibodies.

For these reasons we have "specified complexity," not simply because antibodies are created, but because an immense system of interconnected parts are needed to create these antibodies & these systems are not found in simply one organism, but many, because the mechanistic processes are carried on to new off spring.

Your point here is obscure.

Not surprising as you have cloudy judgment.

So the variation in these mechanisms is subject to natural selection...

The problem with ID supporters isn't natural selection, but the way by which it is used by evolutionists.

e.g (1) a group of reptiles ran up ramps flapping their arms while running from predators, those that were able to sprout wings over millions of years were naturally selected, they became birds.

e.g (2) a mammal decided to catch fish in the ocean because there was no food on land. Over millions of years it was able to grow flippers, develop sonar capabilities & grow a blow hole to the top of it's head, these features were all naturally selected for.

Edited by SavageD, : mistake in first point

---

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. (lol!) The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.1