An impossible challenge

Faith & Science Conversation
61

I have read through some of the comments here, and I mostly agree when they argue that this analogy (ant –> antidisestablishmentarianism) is flawed. It gives the wrong idea about evolution for two main reasons: (1) it assumes evolutionary mechanisms are teleological and (2) it assumes DNA is purely linguistic.

The point of solving this analogy is obviously just to show that evolution could reach this path. Therefore, say if evolutionary history indicated that some hypothetical word was reached, it wouldn’t contradict the theory. This analogy doesn’t show that evolution is teleological, it shows us that, even when limiting oneself to just functional words, we can reach certain “ends” merely by virtue of chance mutations searching a set space of functional words, so to speak.

But another fact is that evolution doesn’t have to find valid words. We have about 30,000 functional genes in our body which are protein-coding. We have another 20,000 non-functional genes (or pseudogenes) which don’t confer a benefit nor are they necessarily negative. We also have a vast space of transposons and other features which are free to mutation and often are biochemically active. This wild west of about 88-94% of our genome is totally free to mutate and eventually mutational load becomes something interesting and new.

4 Likes
62

When discussing any scientific theory, evolution included, hands-on experience and practical demonstrations that illustrate the underlying principles are always going to carry more weight than dubious analogies or discussions about philosophy, worldviews or politics.

As a philosopher, I can agree that we should divvy out our criticisms in the context where they are appropriate as well as try to escape unwarranted assumptions. I personally do think you have to apply philosophy (insofar as epistemology and logic goes) to our understanding of science. Also, I would argue that worldview is unavoidable and we should always do our best to evaluate the merits of a worldview on their own grounds.

Anyways, I’ll have to check out that program and mess around with it. I think it’s interesting that this remains a criticism of evolution from intelligent design proponents when it just misses so many important variables. Thanks for your comments!

1 Like
63

:smiling_face_with_sunglasses:

If you say so.

That has been the assertion from day 1.
Flogging a dead horse would be a good analogy here.

You don’t listen. You don’t think beyond what you assert.
And you dismiss any argument that doesn’t fit the scientific view.

has nothing to do with the subject in hand.

Just keep trotting out your assertions. it is what science does best.

Once again, that has nothing to do with the subject in hand.

But it is evolution, suppose, and that is close enough for scientists around here.

Richard

64

There was nothing random about it other than a poor choice of target, but that seems to have been ignored.

How can evolution be teleological? It has no intelligence to see, set or aim with.

I am sorry but that just shows an ignorance of analogies.

Wrong again.

How it was solved contradicted evolution despite using what might be seen as evolutionary limitations

It also threw up the problem of how an IC can be constructed of many part when only two can be assembled at once.

The target was not IC, That des not mean any target is not IC
Llanfairpwllgwyngyll would have been fun but it is in Welsh so the syntax is harder to break down. In truth the word game it was based on does not include proper nouns but I actually chose one, which was a bit of an oversight on my part.

Now there is an interesting assertion.

What is a successful and valid sequence then? (ass opposed to an unsuccessful or even dangerous one)

And one might question how it cam about… but that would be philosophical.

I had better not go down that rabbit hole again.

Richard

65

Why the artificial limitation? It turns the exercise into a straw man. For example, given how evolution has been observed to work, these would be valid first steps:

ANT → ANTANT
ANT → ANTTNA

That neither of those is a word does not matter so long as “ANT” is still in there.

Again, why the artificial limitation? This makes for a straw man, not an exercise that has anything to do with evolution.

So why include a statement that is contradictory?

That depends on your definition of “intelligence”.

BTW-- (FOR FUN)

ANT → ANTTNA → ANTNA → ANTENA → ANTENNA

1 Like
66

You do understand what an analogy is for?
(as in King David)

It proves nothing but it can show something. Something that is less obvious in real life, or, in this case, Scientific jargon and theory

The trouble is that your criticisms fail to understand the analogy, or the reason for it.

I do not care what your example demonstrates.

But is ANTANT a valid sequence?
Even if it is in genetics, it is not in the terms of the analogy. A valid word correlates to a valid sequence.
Dormant or junk sequences do not factor in the analogy. Even if a dormant sequence can later on become valid, it does not change the results. You cannot merge more than two sets of genomes in anyone zygote so how are you ever going to combine more than two components of an IC in one go? You cannot! The scientific get-out is invalid within the parameters of evolution even if it works in other fields. Whether you like it or not the living factor makes all the difference, along with survival and competition.
You cannot build an IC from the ground up any more than you can dismantle it. That is the whole point and to convert from one IC to another eg ectotherme to endotherme becomes absolutely impossible. There is no half way or any other fraction between them. So either it did not happen, or there are mechanisms to make it happen that evolution theory has not found or identified. it is as simple as that.
Even if you can build an ectotherme from scratch, you still can’t dismantle it again to convert to a different configuration. It would be like changing a car from petrol to diesel. It can be done but the car is dead while it is being done. That doesn’t matter with a car but it sure as hell matters with a living creature!

Just try some of that common sense you seem to reject. God gave it you for a reason!

Richard

67

Thanks for continuing the conversation!

I agree that there wasn’t anything random about my solution. All I was attempting was to demonstrate a possible solution (which others here have also solved your puzzle in different ways). I agree that evolution is not teleological. There is no aiming for a particular solution, and thus there is not a particularly high chance evolution would reach that particular word over others. Yet, evolution could reach that word, and indeed there are a lot of words evolution could reach this way. I grant that there are biological functions which could not be reached via evolution, in fact we see many such evolutionary developments throughout biology which are not the highest peak of fitness, but rather the easiest-to-reach peak of fitness. That is expected under a model which is fundamentally random in respect to fitness, but selects for fitness when it arises.

In the end, the whole analogy contradicts evolution, because you are asking for a particular conclusion from the outset. This is not something that evolution is capable of doing. The fact that these very evolutionary limitations were used (in a much more constrictive manner than even biology permits), shows the game, doesn’t it? It can happen, therefore it will over vast time and large populations.

This analogy is not going to show that IC is relevant to biology. You’re going to need to defend that claim with a more substantive empirical example from biology. An analogy really isn’t going to cut it, I’m afraid.

In the wild west of the genome (the majority of it), things that don’t confer advantage or even those which are harmful are neither selected for or against. This is neutral theory 101.

I’m fine with asking the questions with how life came about. And you’re right, these are philosophical, i.e. metaphysical, questions. However, we’re just talking about the natural progression of change within a pre-existent system.

If you want to talk philospeak, I am at your service and more than willing. :slight_smile:

4 Likes
68

And that is the whole point of it.

:confounded_face:

That old chestnut

The unassailable bastion of science.

I really do not know why I bother.

Richard

69

So, you’ve essentially done nothing to show why evolution is false. You’ve done nothing to demonstrate irreducible complexity. You’ve made no new valid scientific, or even philosophical, points. I’m really not sure why you bother here either, to be honest.

5 Likes
70

Banging my head against a brick wall springs to mind.
(But that is another analogy)

If only scientists could see this wall they have raised.

Richard

71

I wager you think you’re being clear here, but I’m at a total loss as to what you expect me to take away from our exchange. Again, it seems like it’s been a bit of a nothing-burger.

Are you trying to make a point about how analogies are flawed?

Anyone here can tell you that, you’re preaching to the choir.

Are you critiquing a particular methodology of science? Because, that’s all I’m taking away from your last statement and it’s a little out of context from what we’ve been discussing.

Sorry, if this has been frustrating for you. My intent is to get to the substance of the disagreement, or clash, to elucidate the truth. If that’s your concern as well. Please, let’s continue.

72

I would xpect no less.

It is to do with the scientific mind and the scientific method and a rigid viewpoint.

In truth it is beyond my linguistic ability to explain it in terms that you would accept (I am reluctant to say understand because of the connotations involved)

Richard

Edit.

put it this way.
If you do not value or see the relevance of analogies then they cannot be used to get through to you. I reason using analogies. It is part of my mindset, but I may as well be talking a foreign language.

73

“It is to do with the scientific mind and the scientific method and a rigid viewpoint.” - Richard

Is that what our conversation has been about? I thought you offered a specific challenge to evolutionary theories mechanisms. I offered a demonstration of how the analogy was applicable to/evidence for evolutionary mechanisms. Where does that imply I don’t see the value in analogies? Analogies are incredibly useful where they match reality.

It’s strange that you challenge the scientific mind/method as if it is a monolith—it’s not. That’s weird, don’t do that.

“In truth it is beyond my linguistic ability to explain it in terms that you would accept.” - Richard

You don’t know me well enough to assume you know what terms I would or would not accept. I have no problems with philosophical arguments. That is, in fact, my trained field of expertise (Western History & Philosophy). I wrote my thesis on science epistemology, so I am open to hearing a challenge to my view, but I’ve considered these matters in detail.

EDIT: To be more charitable.

1 Like
74

Not exactly, it just underpins much of the discussions here; if you can call them discussions.
I am not getting at you personally. I am not even claiming that all scientists are bloody minded or somehow deaf and stubborn. The trouble is that we can’t have this conversation without all or any of those images raising their ugly heads, it is individuality and diversity.
A French man can be as intelligent and friendly as he likes, but if I do not speak French and he dos not speak English we cannot communicate.
(Another analogy!)
Do you see my point? And my frustrations?

I don’t.

And I can use it.

But i do not use it all the time or reference everything against it.

That is a given. I have been “discussing” on this forum for a long time and this is the fist time we have engaged (to my knowledge). Forgive me but it is easy to get into the “boxes” syndrome

I have been told more than once that

“You cannot criticise a scientific theory unless you use science”

As a philosopher I hope you see what that means.
and what your comment

triggered

Perhaps we can discuss how analogies fit into philosophy?
(maybe not :slightly_smiling_face:)

Richard

1 Like
75

I take your point about the difficulty in communicating philosophy to a scientist. I suppose we can find some common ground there, perhaps.

However, again you seem to think the members of this forum thread are dismissing your argument because you made an analogy. It’s actually because you made a poor analogy, and a poor analogy isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

You should consider that scientists don’t just use science as their only means of knowledge. Maybe some forms of materialism will entail that, but that is another matter. I’ve written extensively against methodological naturalism and a priori leaps in what conclusions science is allowed to make. Some of what you’re saying rings true, but I don’t think you’re in the right forum to be making those kinds of critiques, i.e. BioLogos—it’s in the name.

I would never say you must limit yourself to scientific arguments when model building. Most science philosophers agree that the scientific models we make are creative endeavors anyway.

Finally, I hope you’re not suggesting that because you’ve made no valid arguments, that somehow should affect me in some way other than in boredom.

If you want to continue this vague diatribe about science, you may be talking to the wrong person. If you want to discuss analogies in regards to philosophy, I am open to that. Again, I want to know where it is we disagree, and I doubt it’s there. Thanks for an interesting discussion thus far.

76

By having more than one component in each genome.

Why not? If a genome can contain one component of an IC system, why can’t it contain two?

(I suspect the ‘answer’ is based on some ridiculous misconception of how genetics works[1] and the only response will be to complain that I don’t understand or am being superior again - no explanation will be provided.)

Not that it matters. This isn’t how biological systems typically evolve. Not even IC ones.

Cold-bloodedness is irreducibly complex???

How in Hera’s name can a non-existent temperature regulation system be irreducibly complex?

Take a petrol-driven car.
Add a diesel engine.
Connect the diesel engine to the crankshaft so that either engine can rotate it.
Disconnect the petrol engine from the crank shaft.
Remove the petrol engine.
At no point is the car without a working engine.

This has been explained before - not that it should have needed to be explained - but it clearly hasn’t sunk in.

Probably because in order to learn something it’s first necessary to appreciate that there is something to learn.

  1. The idea that all the components of a biological system must be generated from the same section of DNA, for example. ↩︎

2 Likes
77

So the whole point of your challenge was to show that evolution can’t do something that everyone agrees that evolution can’t do, and which evolution doesn’t need to do anyway.

4 Likes
78

:slightly_smiling_face:

Maybe that s a matter of opinion.

I chose the wrong target, that did not help.

Perhaps you can suggest an analogy of he limitatons of incremental steps?

You can approach a chasm as slow as yoy like but eventually there is a gap that a small step cannot traverse. The problem wih evolutionary theory is that is refuses to accept that such chasms exist, because of the ill fated “God of the gaps” arguments at the end of the last century.
IC is all about that concept.

The poblem I have is that modern evolutionists seem to be be so obsessed with genetic mapping and mathematics that they have “forgotten” or at least taken for granted the basic evolutionary process on which everything relies. You cannot evolve if there is no method of change. All these mechanisms that get thrown at me are not the basic change, they are secondary developments.

I learned evolution nearly 50 years ago and the net conclusion has been that I am miles out of date, but, as far as I can tell, the basic method of change, Random deviations causing new sequences, has not. That is the basic method of change, is it not?
That equates to small steps. The “scope” of this change has never been defined, it just “works”. it is almost a blind spot. Time will solve everything. The have billions of years to change. But

Philosophically you must understand the concept of the impossible change?

It is impossible to build a bridge from the earth to the moon.

However Scientists are adamant that such an impossibility cannot exist in nature or evolution. It happened so it must have happened like this.

And I even get
Show me an IC that evolution cannot make!

How can I do that?

How can I demonstrate an impossible construction? it is a concept not empirical data. How do you prove a concept without the empirical data?

A scieintist, would appear to be incapable of accepting such a thing, at least, on this forum.

Sorry, I have ranted

Richard

79

:confounded_face:

I give up.

There is no arguing with simplistic, naive, childish logic.

If you cannot understand the concept, i cannot show it you or teach it you.

Just forget it.

Richard

80

My conclusion is that you didn’t learn it very well or to any depth, and have picked up a lot of misconceptions and swallowed some ID/creationist bafflegab since.