Philosophy Discussion Forums

Mel opines: "The problem with believing that natural selection is a sufficient search algorithm for successful novel, functioning, integerated biological information is that there is simply no evidence (that I've ever been made aware of) that it is, and insurmountable mathematical evidence indicates that it cannot be sufficient because it cannot confer teleological information into the developmental process.

In order to generate new, complex, functioning, coded biological information, the information generation system, and/or the filtering or search process must be teleological."


Once again, I find Meleagar's reasoning fraught with errors, and with a perhaps intentional misrepresentation of the nature of science.

Sure, one could easily agree with his statement above that natural selection is a NOT a sufficient search algorithm for successful novel, functioning, integerated biological information. But then again, no evolutionist has ever claimed that it is. You see, his statement is so filled with undefined terms that it is meaningless. "search algorithm" "novel, functioning, integrative biological information" - what are either of those things? What, for that matter, is "information", and how does Meleagar propose that "information" should be measured?

Any random process (which evolution is assuredly not!) will, after a certain amount of time, yield some result X. Now since the process is random, there is no teleological goal coded into the process, and yet, it did arrive at X! What are the chances of that happening again, given the random process?

But as I said, evolution is not a random process. It always has as its goal the survival and reproduction of the species (or of the individual, or the gene, depending on your theoretical bent). It culls the less fit, and allows the (slightly) more fit to prosper.

And we now understand many of the mechanisms which allow evolutionary change - both on the small scale of what used to be called microevolution, and on the grander scale of what used to be called macroevolution. We now know, too, the role that very minor changes in hox (homeobox) genes can have in causing major changes in body plan of developing organisms - whole new body segments, new limbs, etc.

The fact of evolution is one of the most, if not the most, strongly established facts in all of science. And the mechanisms - the theory of evolution as opposed to the fact of evolution - is becoming better understood with each passing year.

I'll make the same offer here I have in a dozen other Internet Forums: Pick any specific claim of evolution - that is, something like the evolution of whales, of snakes, of amphibians from fish, of reptiles from amphibians, of mammals from reptiles, of birds from their reptilian ancestors, of giraffes, of canids - and let's go throuigh the evidence bit by bit. Show me where my interpretation of the evidence is wrong - and what better interpretations might be offered. Not vague generalities, but specifics - specific fossils, specific lineages, specific proposals of sister taxa.

I've never had a Creationist or ID proponent take me up on this offer. I'm at a loss to explain why that should be so.

Rich

Rich attempts to obfuscate the challenge at hand. Let me reiterate more simply.

First, no one here is debating that evolution, in the broadest sense of biological change over time, occurs. What I have asked for is not a just-so story of how it "could have" occurred, nor have I ased for evidence of any specific, minor observed variation.

What is in question is the math behind the claim that all sources of genetic variation (V), sorted by natural selection (NS), can generate new, functioning features like an eye, winged flight, or an immune system. Rich attempts to transfer the burden onto others by getting them to define those terms; but others are not the ones who have made the claim that V(NS) can equal winged flight (or however they would define the evolutionary algorithm). It is up to Rich or other defenders of that claim to define V and NS and give them values that can compute evolutionary outcomes - or, failing that, to show that their evolutionary values are at least capable of producing what they are claimed to have produced.

If evolution is a fact, and it is one of the most proven facts in science, then surely (as other physical sciences can do) they can offer us an evolutionary algorithm or formula that can predict what they will find in certain biological situations. One can certainly use math in the other physical sciences to predict or retrodict; where is the evolutionary formula that gives variation rates and natural selection sorting mechanisms the teeth to make a falsifiable prediction about what evolution can and cannot produce?

Isn't that what real science is about? Not vague "just so" stories that provide historical narratives, but rock solid, mathematical, falsifiable predictions?

Here is a question for defenders of Darwinism to answer: how long will it take for bacteria under the necessary environmental stressors to evolve into something other than bacteria? If it is a known fact that genetic variation being acted on by natural selection can and did change simple cellular organisms into all organisms we see today, and it is known as factually as any other of the sciences, then surely this fundamental question can be described mathematically, by giving V(NS) proper definitions and descriptive values.

I've never had a darwinist or non-teleological evolutionary proponent take me up on this challenge. I'm at a loss to explain why that should be so.


How would a Darwinist answer the question "how much time is required for a bacteria-like organism to evolve into a bird-like organism?" Surely if scientists can state that it is a scientific fact that non-teleological forces (i.e., not trying to create the specific features of the organism that result) can generate the resulting organism with all of its features, they have some sort of mathematical model that utilizes values for variation and natural selection that demonstrate such a non-teleological process to conclusion is even possible.

Right? Given the known values of genetic variation and natural selection (if indeed they are known), how much time, in general, is required by those values for a bacteria-like organism to evolve into a bird-like organism?

And, if someone is going to give an answer, please provide the values used and the formula.

Meleagar,
I think you need to have a look at how chemistry started. There is a large portion of time it was regarded as witch craft; it was not until around WWI that the science (as you define it in the previous post) took off, the methods were 'perfected' and formulas were made.

Analyzing various genomes is the key to proving genetic variation, natural selection, evolution; and thus making formulas. I think a problem however will be that answers will be statistically based, much like the location of an electron: there will be uncertainty involved in the answer.

Meleagar wrote:how long will it take for bacteria under the necessary environmental stressors to evolve into something other than bacteria?

If a bacteria is successful as a bacteria, it has no reason to evolve, its not necessarily just a matter of time alone. That's why there are still bacteria around, along with a multitude of other organisms that are not bacteria.

The answer is probably noted in fossil records: first bacteria found at x date; first bird like creature found at x+y date.

Wanabe,

You have only provided me with your expression of faith that such a mathematical model might exist. That's not what I'm looking for. I have no doubt that many people have faith that such a scientific, predictive model "might" or "could" exist, but until I'm directed to one I have no reason to believe it is even possible in principle for random genetic variation (random in the sense that it is not directed towards the specific outcome in question), acted on by natural selection, can over any period of time transform a bacteria-like species into a bird-like species.

That bacteria at X date is found, and that birds at Y date are found in the fossil record doesn't indicate that the mechanism in question is responsible - or even can be responsible - for the transformation of X to Y in that time period.

You are correct Meleagar, there is in fact no direct proof. The best thing to assert however is not intelligent design, or that things therefore have a ultimate destination.

Fossil records are imperfect, but so are many of the formulas for other sciences you desire to have an equivalent of for biology/evolution. Fact of the matter is, regardless of their imperfection the formulas have lead us in the right direction, because the data we find consistently supports the theories and formulas. No, not in all cases, but that does not mean the model is invalid, it just means there is more than we know as of yet to a given occurrence, and there is room for improvement.

We are in the process of perfecting a map of the human genome and genomes of other species. When we do so we will then be able to track evolutionary changes as you desire and construct formulas.

With so many branches of life, is it against probability that things will meet at a common biological ground, it is the way of life by all observation to be diverse.

It may very well be that god did it, but until we have data to suggest that god did it, and have no other scientific explanation We should not eliminate the possibility of either side being correct. If we do, either argument is guilty of the same fallacy.

I am of the opinion that following the path of science, which has lead to many improvements to various things, and understanding of natural phenomena: will eventually lead us to truth, be it god, or random chaos.

Wanabe,

You haven't supplied or directed me to any theoretical model where the capacity of assumed sources of genetic variation (non-teleological in respect to particular outcomes) "V" and natural selection "NS" are described in terms of what they can and cannot produce in a given length of time depending on contextual variables.

Therefore, this "Darwinism" has no means of being falsified, or any way of knowing if it is fundamentally incomplete or wrong in it's assertions.

Do I really need to Meleagar, all you have to do is go to your search engine of choice and look up evolutionary theory.

I know you inherently disagree, so I'm not going to bother looking for some thing that doesn't exist yet. It certainly doesn't work the way you think, evolution is not time based.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution wrote: Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.

There is no standard time in which a generation happens.

It is clear that your understanding of evolution[the fact that you call it darwinism. darwinism is wrong(no not completely), it was the first theory about evolution] is shallow.

If you truly wish to research the topic. Look up evolution from say 10 current sources(within the past 2 years). 5 of your choice and 5 of the other sides. Compare how these people arrived at their conclusions and see which one is more logically valid.

Wanabe,

I appreciate your admission that no such scientific, predictive model exists (to your knowledge) that demonstrates it is within the capacity of known sources of variation, acted upon by natural selection, to evolve a bacteria-like species into a bird-like species.

If anyone else can direct me to such a predictive, falsifiable theoretical model of evolution, please speak up.

Mel continues constructing a strawman argument. Mathematical models are descriptive, they are not proscriptive. No evolutionist has ever made the claim that Mel says they have concerning Natural Selection.

And yes, it is encumbent upon you, Mel, to define the terms you toss around so freely - please define "information" and please tell us how you propose to measure it, before you make claims about "no new information".

You are still stuck in the same rut you were a year or so ago when you refused to engage with me in any meaningful discussion of the evidence for evolution. Pick the claim, Mel, and let's go through the evidence, piece by piece, and you can show where my interpretations of that evidence are incorrect, and show me the better interpretations you have to offer.

Mel then shows that he has no idea what his opponents are talking about when he says: "Wanabe, I appreciate your admission that no such scientific, predictive model exists (to your knowledge) that demonstrates it is within the capacity of known sources of variation, acted upon by natural selection, to evolve a bacteria-like species into a bird-like species. If anyone else can direct me to such a predictive, falsifiable theoretical model of evolution, please speak up."

No evolutionist has ever, in all the history of the science, claimed that a bacteria-like species evolved into a bird-like species. Anyone who did would be laughed out of the room. In fact, it is only Creationists who ever make such claims, like cows evolving into whales ala Hovind. So Wananbe is quite correct, we are unable to show how such a transformation could be made - because it can't, and hasn't.

Richw9090 wrote:Mel continues constructing a strawman argument. Mathematical models are descriptive, they are not proscriptive.

First, I'm not making an argument. I've offered no premise that I am defending. I'm asking for something that should be rather simple for those that claim that evolutionary theory is as rigorous as the other physical sciences.

Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "proscriptive"; to proscribe means to condemn. To "proscript" means prohibit. You might mean "prescriptive", but who would think that a mathematical model would itself cause the physical consequences in question?

The term I actually used was "predict"; meaning it in the same sense that such models which describe, say, the effects of the phenomena of gravity by plugging in the variables of mass, inertia, velocity, etc. can predict how long it will take a spaceship to get to the moon of a distant planet with great accuracy.

That is using a scientifically descriptive model to predict outcomes. It is falsifiable, meaning it produces non-trivial falsifiable predictions. One can also retrodict using the same falsifiable, predictive model - meaning, if someone finds a bullet in a wall somewhere, they can retrodict where the bullet was fired from using mathematical models.

If evolutionary theory is similarly rigorous science, then surely the claim that known evolutionary mechanisms can and did move a bacteria-like species to a bird like species can be backed up with the values that would be necessary to substantiate such a claim; IOW, a theoretical model with values for variation rates, natural selection, procreation rates, and time.

IOW, if one cannot even produce a basic theoretical model that demonstrates that what they claim is possible even in principle with falsifiable predictions or retrodictions, there is no reason to hold such a claim as anything other than a hypothesis.

Anyone?

No evolutionist has ever, in all the history of the science, claimed that a bacteria-like species evolved into a bird-like species.

Sure they do. They all do. Common descent dictates that evolution began at some point with single-celled organisms and, over time, adaption, speciation, etc;, through many successive forms and morphological variations, at some point manufactured a bird.

In semantic shorthand that it seems most everyone but you understands, this means that it is claimed that evolutionary processes transformed a bacteria-like organisms into a bird-like organism (given billions of years and perhaps countless adaptive, speciated, morphological forms in-between).

If one is going to claim that not only is such a feat possible with certain theorized mechanisms, but that it is a scientific fact, then one needs to be able to present the falsifiable, predictive theoretical model that offers up the definitions, variables, values, and algorithmic functions that demonstrate the validity of this claim.

Otherwise it's just a tooth fairy hypothesis.

Meleagar,
A lack of (what you consider) evidence to support evolution does not disprove it.

Why do you want a falsifiable model of some thing?

falsifiable:
–verb (used with object)
1.
to make false or incorrect, esp. so as to deceive: to falsify income-tax reports.
2.
to alter fraudulently.
3.
to represent falsely: He falsified the history of his family to conceal his humble origins.
4.
to show or prove to be false; disprove: to falsify a theory.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/falsifiable)

Do you mean feasible? Do you mean it makes other ideas falsifiable?

What evidence do you have that says that intelligent design is correct?

What evidence do you have that says evolution is teleological?


And remember

Meleagar wrote:one needs to be able to present the..., predictive theoretical model that offers up the definitions, variables, values, and algorithmic functions that demonstrate the validity of this claim.

Otherwise it's just a tooth fairy hypothesis.

I thought I’d join this topic because some exchanges in the topic: Natural selection in humans are probably more at home here.

I think I understand Meleagar’s request, and I think it is reasonable. I happen to ‘believe’ in natural selection. But I find the difficulty to meet a request like Meleagar’s quite fascinating.

To start, I hope I’m right in thinking the sense of ‘falsifiable’ in ‘falsifiable predictive theoretical model’ (Post #160) is number 4 in wanabe’s Post #161, ie:

to show or prove to be false; disprove: to falsify a theory.

I’m happy with the methodological principle that a theory is unlikely to be meaningful if it is not falsifiable. Otherwise it can be declared to be true regardless of what evidence could be applied to it. So it does seem fair to ask of the theory of natural selection that it be falsifiable.

What might be useful would be to start considering what a mathematically sound, theoretical model of the kind that Meleagar is asking for would actually be like.

I wonder if a possible place to start (and I mean start) would be computer simulations like the ‘Biomorph’ algorithm, which generates exotic shapes by applying selection to successive rounds of replication. As a total ‘experiment’ I think this kind of thing mimics artificial selection rather than natural selection, in that there is an experimenter doing the selection.

To move a simulation like this more towards natural selection the experimenter’s selection would need to be replaced by competition between replicators. After all, the theory behind natural selection is that there is no teleology because there is no goal other than survival. And the ‘goal of survival’ is not a true goal in the teleological sense because a replicator which survives to replicate at the expense of other competing replicators does not have a goal to survive and replicate, it just does survive to replicate at the expense of other competing replicators.

This is nothing like an answer yet to Meleagar’s request, but do people have any views as to whether this might be the kind of direction where an answer might be found?

I thought I’d join this topic because some exchanges in the topic: Natural selection in humans are probably more at home here.

I think I understand Meleagar’s request, and I think it is reasonable. I happen to ‘believe’ in natural selection. But I find the difficulty to meet a request like Meleagar’s quite fascinating.

To start, I hope I’m right in thinking the sense of ‘falsifiable’ in ‘falsifiable predictive theoretical model’ (Post #160) is number 4 in wanabe’s Post #161, ie:

to show or prove to be false; disprove: to falsify a theory.

I’m happy with the methodological principle that a theory is unlikely to be meaningful if it is not falsifiable. Otherwise it can be declared to be true regardless of what evidence could be applied to it. So it does seem fair to ask of the theory of natural selection that it be falsifiable.

What might be useful would be to start considering what a mathematically sound, theoretical model of the kind that Meleagar is asking for would actually be like.

I wonder if a possible place to start (and I mean start) would be computer simulations like the ‘Biomorph’ algorithm, which generates exotic shapes by applying selection to successive rounds of replication. As a total ‘experiment’ I think this kind of thing mimics artificial selection rather than natural selection, in that there is an experimenter doing the selection.

To move a simulation like this more towards natural selection the experimenter’s selection would need to be replaced by competition between replicators. After all, the theory behind natural selection is that there is no teleology because there is no goal other than survival. And the ‘goal of survival’ is not a true goal in the teleological sense because a replicator which survives to replicate at the expense of other competing replicators does not have a goal to survive and replicate, it just does survive to replicate at the expense of other competing replicators.

This is nothing like an answer yet to Meleagar’s request, but do people have any views as to whether this might be the kind of direction where an answer might be found?

There are such purported "natural selection" simulations, called Avida and EV among others, but in the papers I directed you to previously, peer-reviewed published by the IEEE, Marks, Behe and others demonstrate that such programs always rely on systemic teleological information ("active" information, or "oracle" information).

Something closely analogous to what evolutionists should be able to provide would be the simulations that were run that modeled the expansion of the universe following the big bang; they plugged in all their known values and variables and ran the program, ending up with a universe completely unlike what we actually see. After running some test sims they realized their value for mass was way off - IOW, the needed to put a lot more mass into the program to end up with the "soapy bubbles" galactic meta-structures we actually see throughout the universe - and to account for the existence of "the great attractor", an enormous agglomeration of galaxies.

And so the term "dark matter" was coined to label this unseen mass. They found their expected formula to be entirely inadequate when they ran the simulation and realized that by far most of the matter in the universe must be invisible to our eyes in order for the other known constants to be able to produce the universe we actually live in.

Without such a rigorous, falsifiable model, the claim that natural selection & known sources of genetic variation "can" and "has" produced the diversity of life we see is an empty ideological claim. Worse than that: it's an outright lie.

wanabe wrote:A lack of (what you consider) evidence to support evolution does not disprove it.

It's not up to me to disprove it. It's up to those that claim it is a fact to prove it.

Why do you want a falsifiable model of some thing?

What difference does my motivation make?

Do you mean feasible? Do you mean it makes other ideas falsifiable?

No, I mean that it makes a significant prediction that, if that prediction fails, it seriously undermines the credibility/validity of the theory.

What evidence do you have that says that intelligent design is correct?

Who made a claim that intelligent design is corrrect?

What evidence do you have that says evolution is teleological?

Who said evolution is teleological? Darwin was the one that claimed evolution was not teleological-specific; it is up to those who claim that it is not teleological-specific to support that claim.

It's not up to me to disprove non-teleological evolutionary theory, nor is it up to me to prove any other theory. If someone is going to assert that non-teleological-specific (towards a specific goal or end) evolution is a fact, and that generated all of the diversity of life as we see it today, then it is up to them to defend and support that assertion in a significant, falsifiable way.

Meleagar wrote:There are such purported "natural selection" simulations, called Avida and EV among others, but in the papers I directed you to previously, peer-reviewed published by the IEEE, Marks, Behe and others demonstrate that such programs always rely on systemic teleological information ("active" information, or "oracle" information).

Hi Meleagar,

One of the papers on the site you linked to is LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information, by William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II.

Is this a good example of a paper which we could perhaps discuss in the context of this topic?