Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
76 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK, Pressie (3 members, 73 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,038 Year: 5,150/6,534 Month: 570/794 Week: 61/135 Day: 1/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Doesn't Natural Selection lead to Specified Complexity?
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 69 of 138 (617235)
05-26-2011 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by PaulK
05-26-2011 3:10 PM


Re: So: 'If it was designed intelligently then it is the product of intelligent design.'
PaulK writes:

I strongly suggest that you drop the idea of mutations directly causing drift to any significant extent...

My understanding of neutral theory and genetic drift is that they are driven by neutral and nearly neutral mutations, so I don't see how there couldn't be a direct relationship between mutations and drift. What am I missing?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2011 3:10 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2011 1:39 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 71 of 138 (617282)
05-27-2011 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by PaulK
05-27-2011 1:39 AM


Re: So: 'If it was designed intelligently then it is the product of intelligent design.'
Right, but it was suggested that Peter drop the idea that mutations directly cause drift, and even taking into account the italicized word it's hard to see why you feel this way. I thought maybe you were trying to emphasize that drift is the way that existing neutral or nearly neutral alleles change frequency in a population, as opposed to the appearance of new alleles through mutation, but I wasn't sure and I'm still not sure.

Also, while it's true that the spread of mutations is controlled by reproductive success, by definition the mutations responsible for drift have little to no impact on that. Neutral and nearly neutral alleles can be linked to other alleles that are not neutral (I was just over at Wikipedia, turns out there's a term for this, genetic draft), but drift alleles do not exercise any significant influence over reproductive success themselves. And once any alleles find themselves in circumstances where they do impact reproductive success then by definition they're no longer drift alleles.

I'm not yet familiar with Peter's level of understanding, but if the distinction you're trying to draw has merit it may be at too detailed a level to be worthwhile in this discussion.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2011 1:39 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2011 8:26 AM Percy has seen this message
 Message 73 by Wounded King, posted 05-27-2011 8:34 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 74 of 138 (617289)
05-27-2011 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Wounded King
05-27-2011 8:34 AM


Re: So: 'If it was designed intelligently then it is the product of intelligent design.'
Hi WK,

I'm sorry I can't say things the way you'd like, but I can't help believing you do actually understand what I really mean most of the time. I'm not going to respond, it would be a distraction from the topic anyway.

My point was that it is misleading at best to just state that the idea that mutations directly cause drift is wrong. The obvious interpretation is that this is a claim that mutations should be disregarded as a factor in drift. If there's more context elsewhere so that Peter knows and understands what was actually meant then that's great. For example, if Peter saw what PaulK wrote and understood it as what you say here then that's great:

Wounded King writes:

There are no 'mutations responsible for drift', drift is not a mutational phenomenon it is a phenomenon of random sampling. Mutation simply creates the alleles, whatever their fitness, upon which drift and selection operate.

But in many cases people don't distinguish between alleles and mutations, it often being the case that the term allele isn't familiar and so the term mutation stands in for allele, and while I don't know if that is the case here, what I fear is that Peter is being subjected to this same sort of nit-picky treatment where something stated insufficiently precisely from your point of view is criticized as if it were wrong.

There's a guy in my group at work who is brilliant, true genius level, but he demands an impossible level of precision in all technical communication and is widely despised.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Wounded King, posted 05-27-2011 8:34 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Wounded King, posted 05-27-2011 9:49 AM Percy has seen this message

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 77 of 138 (619245)
06-09-2011 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Peter
06-09-2011 10:00 AM


Re: So: 'If it was designed intelligently then it is the product of intelligent design.'
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Peter, posted 06-09-2011 10:00 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Peter, posted 06-09-2011 10:19 AM Percy has seen this message

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 84 of 138 (619523)
06-10-2011 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Peter
06-10-2011 6:29 AM


Re: So: 'If it was designed intelligently then it is the product of intelligent design.'
From the Department of Redundancy Department:

Peter writes:

...gene distribution and drift as a function solely of gene distribution.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Peter, posted 06-10-2011 6:29 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Peter, posted 06-13-2011 10:27 AM Percy has seen this message

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 94 of 138 (619773)
06-12-2011 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by SavageD
06-12-2011 12:16 AM


Re: Doesn't Natural Selection lead to Specified Complexity?
Hi SavageD,

In Message 85 you claimed that the underlying mechanisms responsible for adaptation themselves contained specified complexity:

SavageD in Message 85 writes:

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".

Now in this message you're claiming that these mechanisms do not contain specified complexity:

SavageD writes:

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.

Maybe it would help if you provided a clear and unambiguous statement of the definition of specified complexity you're using.

To the extent that there are specific processes inside the cell responsible for producing adaptation, they are as much a product of random mutation and natural selection as all the rest of life.

The difference between our two positions concerns the source of specified complexity, where you believe it is a never-observed intelligent designer, while anyone, even IDists, can easily observe the processes of random mutation and natural selection.

Another difference in our position is that we believe the term specified complexity is made up and has no real workable definition. We're using the term specified complexity in this thread simply for the sake of discussion, not because we believe it has any reality. But when IDists point to structures they claim contain specified complexity and therefore could only be created by an intelligent designer, we can point to the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection as more than sufficient for the job.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by SavageD, posted 06-12-2011 12:16 AM SavageD has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 97 of 138 (619787)
06-12-2011 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by SavageD
06-12-2011 10:20 AM


Re: A call for clarity
SavageD writes:

I was actually working on my own model regarding intelligent design...

We've already got Gitt information, Dembski specified complexity, Behe irreducible complexity, and soon we're to have the SavageD intelligent design model.

Intelligent design is a nifty and intriguing hypothesis, that the results of the efforts of intelligence are recognizable and quantifiable. I think if IDists provided an analytical technique for measuring the effects of intelligent effort that the entire scientific world would be tremendously excited, but all they do is claim a technique, they never provide one. After the initial claim it's all mumbo-jumbo. There's no body of technical literature describing how they developed and refined the technique through years of research, experimentation and analysis. Behe's, Gitt's and Dembski's popular press books spring fully formed from their own minds and not from a foundation of research efforts. Here's hoping that SavageD and his team are hard at work performing the necessary research before publishing their results in Nature and Science while jaws drop in stunned amazement 'round the globe.

The scientific world is prepared to accept results for which there is evidence. No one ever expected that the expansion rate of the universe was accelerating, but that's what the evidence said, so that's what the scientific world accepted. Science follows the evidence where it leads.

The biological world does not expect that there's an intelligent designer behind life and evolution, but if that's what the evidence says then like the accelerating expansion of cosmology, biology will accept it. Like the rest of science biology will follow the evidence where it leads. It would be a stunning and exciting development. It would revolutionize biology. It would probably lead to new research avenues in all fields of science. Fantabulously successful careers and Nobels would be in the works for scientists at the vanguard of the new field of intelligent design research. Opportunities for fame and fortune would abound. There is no lack of motivation for scientists to build reputations by blazing the path in a new field.

But to most biologists intelligent design looks like a dead end, a neat idea but with no evidence that might encourage anyone serous about biology (as opposed to religion) to pursue it. The only people interested in intelligent design are those interested in advancing religion (their own religion, in fact), not science.

Yes, the chemistry of life is extremely complex. Yes, it appears designed. And yes, it appears that imperfect reproduction combined with selection and time produces this effect.

Humans see patterns in everything, both meaningful like shared characteristics between species, and unmeaningful like dogs in clouds and Jesus in a slice of pizza. If we researched cloud shapes we'd discover that there really is no meaning in shapes that resemble something familiar. When we research shared characteristics between species we discover the tree of life.

So when we research the appearance of design in nature, what do we find? This question is what intelligent design is presumably researching, except that they don't appear to be actually doing any research. And in the meantime, the effects of random mutation and natural selection that we observe happening before our very eyes today appear to be precisely what accumulates over time to produce the appearance of design. Environment is a harsh task master, and using chemistry driven by the energy of the sun it compels and guides matter into forms of increasingly amazing complexity.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by SavageD, posted 06-12-2011 10:20 AM SavageD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by SavageD, posted 06-12-2011 12:19 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 113 of 138 (619829)
06-12-2011 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by SavageD
06-12-2011 12:19 PM


Re: A call for clarity
SavageD writes:

O Good, I should give up all hope in defining intelligent designs because no other scientist is willing to look into that area....your my hero good sir

Not sure what you mean by "defining intelligent designs". Is that a synonym for developing a model of intelligent design, which is what you claimed you wanted to do and is what I was responding to?

Anyway, my main point was that if you go off half-cocked then what will happen to you is what has already happened in this thread - you'll get caught up in multiple inconsistencies and contradictions because not only have you not thought anything through, you don't yet have enough knowledge to be worth thinking through (something easily remedied with study).

The suggestion to do your research first and go public second was a sincere and serious one. Your performance here is only proving the advantages of this advice.

A side issue: It's not necessary to quote 40 lines if your reply addresses a mere few.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by SavageD, posted 06-12-2011 12:19 PM SavageD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by SavageD, posted 06-12-2011 4:26 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 115 of 138 (619846)
06-12-2011 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by SavageD
06-12-2011 4:26 PM


Re: A call for clarity
SavageD writes:

Percy writes:

Not sure what you mean by "defining intelligent designs". Is that a synonym for developing a model of intelligent design, which is what you claimed you wanted to do and is what I was responding to?


?

In Message 95 you said:

SavageD in Message 95 writes:

I was actually working on my own model regarding intelligent design...

That was what I was replying to. Then when you answered you instead said you were "defining intelligent designs." So I asked if that was a synonym for defining a model of intelligent design, because that was what you said you were doing in Message 95 that I was replying to.

I came here to refine my idea.

Oh, okay. I think it would be better to do that with other like-minded people so you could then take public a more coherent proposal. You don't even know if you could convince other IDists about your ideas about "synthetic materials" - why don't you try that first? Or PM some other IDists here and see if they'll join you here in this thread.

Often times only a few words are necessary to some up the some up the reply of an individual.

Proofread much?

Seriously, dude, don't let the quote be 20 times longer than the reply. There's a link to the message you're replying to right at the top of your message. The text is already there for all to see, you don't have to quote it all over again. Give the database a break.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by SavageD, posted 06-12-2011 4:26 PM SavageD has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022