Why I remain a Darwin Skeptic

[LM77 (Liam Maguire)]

@EricMH

random variation and natural selection didn’t do it, instead intelligent intervention.

Long time lurker of this thread. Two genuine questions, which probably sum up my biggest concerns with your answer specifically and ID more generally:

1. How does one scientifically test for intelligent intervention? Further, if we are talking supernatural intervention, isn’t testing for that somewhat (read: British understatement) outside of science’s wheelhouse?

2. How does one make an argument for intelligent intervention (of any kind) in any meanful way without it sounding like a case for the ‘god of the gaps’?

Thanks in advance.

[DennisVenema]

@EricMH

I can’t answer your question at this point due to lack of knowledge. Reading through your excellent evolution basics series, btw. For all I know, what you describe could be reachable the natural processes.

All I am doing is delineating possibilities as requested.

Thanks for the reply - much appreciated. I hope you find that series useful/interesting.

[Daniel_Fisher]

Sir, appreciated, thanks. Are you able to clarify my other inquiry - i.e., are you suggesting that two offspring bacteria together possess twice as much information as their parent, and their offspring 4x as much information as the original parent? If you spoke to that I missed it; this thread is becoming quite busy.

[DennisVenema]

@Daniel_Fisher

Sir, appreciated, thanks. Are you able to clarify my other inquiry - i.e., are you suggesting that two offspring bacteria together possess twice as much information as their parent, and their offspring 4x as much information as the original parent? If you spoke to that I missed it; this thread is becoming quite busy.

No, that’s not what I’ve been saying. Though I suppose under some definitions of information that would qualify. I’m talking about effects on a single organism/genome.

[Paradigm (Marc)]

OK! I was using the term “fixed” not in the strict population genetics sense (its been 35 years since I did any population genetics!) of an allele becoming fixed. I used the term loosely to mean that it becomes common enough to be present in a random sample of DNA such that is is detected during sequence analysis.

My skeptism of (neo) Darwinian evolution is supported by my understanding that a new gene arising by random mutation would have a very very low probability of becoming prevalent in the population unless it conferred a very strong selective advantage. New genes which are neutral (give no selective advantage) would not be conserved even allowing 5 million years. Even a moderately advantageous new gene would be unlikely to survive. Yet we have (at the very least) 100s of such new genes in the human genome which are not present in chimps.

[Daniel_Fisher]

@LM77

Long time lurker of this thread. Two genuine questions, which probably sum up my biggest concerns with your answer specifically and ID more generally:

1. How does one scientifically test for intelligent intervention? Further, if we are talking supernatural intervention, isn’t testing for that somewhat (read: British understatement) outside of science’s wheelhouse?
2. How does one make an argument for intelligent intervention (of any kind) in any meanful way without it sounding like a case for the ‘god of the gaps’?

Liam, I would essentially answer this by going back to these analogies. We don’t blink an eye at the idea that an archaeologist makes his living by testing and distinguishing marks on rocks, or examining artifacts, and making distinctions between, say scratches on rocks that are entirely “natural”, and those that were caused by intelligent intervention. And no one would fault him for so doing.

Similarly, a SETI scientist’s entire enterprise is predicated on the idea that they can, scientifically, distinguish between background noise, or signals of natural cause or origin, and radio signals which exhibit signs of intelligent agency.

We could also consider forensics, where scientists try to discriminate between deaths that were by “natural causes” and those that we caused by intelligent agents on purpose.

These particular scientists could undoubtedly test for intelligent intervention, and no one would seriously call them unscientific for so doing. And of course, if any of these had legitimate reasons for concluding intelligent agency in their respective fields, no one would claim they were making a “intelligent agent of the gaps” argument.

In principle, logically, one should be able to examine a biological system just as well as a rock, radio signal, or corpse, and use the very same basic principles to make a judgment about natural causes vs. intelligent purpose. Indeed, if science progresses at it seems to do, and we begin to genetically modify organisms with more and more creativity and skill, there may well be in the future an entire field of science devoted to determining if certain biological features were indeed “man-designed”, or “naturally-occuring”.

In other words: a geologist could explore Stonehenge, and then examine Giant’s Causeway, and use his various skills and methods to determine that one was purposed by intelligent agents, the other naturally occurring. Why can this essentially identical investigative method not be used for a biological system?

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@Paradigm

OK! I was using the term “fixed” not in the strict population genetics sense (its been 35 years since I did any population genetics!) of an allele becoming fixed. I used the term loosely to mean that it becomes common enough to be present in a random sample of DNA such that is is detected during sequence analysis.

That’s fine.

@Paradigm

My skeptism of (neo) Darwinian evolution is supported by my understanding that a new gene arising by random mutation would have a very very low probability of becoming prevalent in the population unless it conferred a very strong selective advantage. New genes which are neutral (give no selective advantage) would not be conserved even allowing 5 million years. Even a moderately advantageous new gene would be unlikely to survive. Yet we have (at the very least) 100s of such new genes in the human genome which are not present in chimps.

A couple of problems here. I was unaware that we had at least hundreds of human-specific genes that conferred little or no selective advantage. I don’t know where you got that idea from – in fact, I don’t even know how one could test the idea. Second, under the more reasonable hypothesis that human-specific genes did confer a selective advantage: yes, most such genes would be lost rather than fixed. How do you know they weren’t?

[EricMH (Eric Holloway)]

@Daniel_Fisher

there may well be in the future an entire field of science devoted to determining if certain biological features were indeed “ man-designed ”, or “ naturally-occuring ”.

In fact this exists, distinguishing GMO produce from wild type.

I can also imagine a Michael Crichtonish thriller where a group of scientist set out to save the world from a pandemic by determining if the virus is lab generated or not. Maybe, for added scares, the virus turns people into zombies!

[Daniel_Fisher]

@EricMH

In fact this exists, distinguishing GMO produce from wild type.

Precisely so, and this will only increase as we get more creative and knowledgeable with genetic modifications. So this should apply to @LM77’s question above: Should we evoke methodological naturalism and say that it is illigitimate to exmaine corn and try to determine if some paticular strand or gene was designed or inserted by an intelligent scientist? Or would that be invoking a “scientist of the gaps” argument??

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@EricMH

@Klax

Not this broad and deep intellectual one obviously.

Meaningful information, even the DNA variant, is a kind of mutual information, which has a well defined mathematical form in both Shannon and Kolmogorov theories of information. I believe Dr. Swamidass made this most excellent observation. Happy to explain more if you are interested. Interestingly enough, both have conservation of information laws that are equivalent to Dembski’s COI law.

No thanks mate. It’s not germane to the topic. There are no occult variables in the material. I was walking with God earlier and once again losing the plot as reality does not need Him unless it does as ground; His omniscience (of the knowable, which, of course, is a lot less than most think) leaves no trace, no disturbance in the aether. The physical is so autonomous it’s as if He does not exist. All of the eternal physical, including abiogenesis and evolution, is fully autonomous. Lacks no needed information. He grounds, thinks it all, and senses, knows and feels it all, by the Spirit. At the most. Which is El Shaddai: The Sufficient One. Enough.

[Paradigm (Marc)]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my posts. You write:

(…) under the more reasonable hypothesis that human-specific genes did confer a selective advantage: yes, most such genes would be lost rather than fixed. How do you know they weren’t?

That is a very good question. I am going to have to go away and remind myself of some population genetics and collect more information on the nature and extent of the human-specific genes.
That might take some time, and I will probably stay away from the forum for a while.

[EricMH (Eric Holloway)]

@Klax

No thanks mate. It’s not germane to the topic. There are no occult variables in the material. I was walking with God earlier and once again losing the plot as reality does not need Him unless it does as ground; His omniscience (of the knowable, which, of course, is a lot less than most think) leaves no trace, no disturbance in the aether. The physical is so autonomous it’s as if He does not exist. All of the eternal physical, including abiogenesis and evolution, is fully autonomous. Lacks no needed information. He grounds, thinks it all, and senses, knows and feels it all, by the Spirit. At the most. Which is El Shaddai: The Sufficient One. Enough.

I think you are the only one in this thread talking about God.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@Paradigm

That is a very good question. I am going to have to go away and remind myself of some population genetics and collect more information on the nature and extent of the human-specific genes.
That might take some time, and I will probably stay away from the forum for a while.

Feel free to ask questions.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

You mean you’re not?! There’s a third ‘alternative’?

[EricMH (Eric Holloway)]

@Klax

There’s a third ‘alternative’?

I have no idea. Seems possible, e.g. Mormonism’s theology, or Tolkien’s hierarchy of angelic powers in the Silmarillion, or the vast Hindu pantheon of demi-gods, or Nagel’s atheistic teleological law, or Crick’s space aliens, or weird quantum backward causation.

[Daniel_Fisher]

Then I fear I still don’t understand how any duplication event, by itself, can be claimed as an increase of information. If I buy ten copies of your recent book, I have no more information than I would have had if I had only one copy. I might be able to use that same information more effectively: having such duplicates (I could give it to ten students to read instead of them having to share one copy) could vastly increase the efficacy or function of that same information, but there was absolutely no new information added simply by duplicating it.

Similarly in computer science - simply copying a file or executable produces absolutely no new information. Granted, having multiple copies of a program that can independently function may well produce an increase in efficiency. But there was absolutely no new information involved.

e.g., If I wrote a basic program that would create simulate rolling 10 dice, and then end with success when the program found all sixes, then copying that program and running multiple simultaneous iterations of the same program would significantly speed up the process of finding all sixes. But there would have been no new information whatsoever infused into my computer by simply coping and pasting an already extant program.

So I have no issue whatsoever with the idea that random, naturally occurring duplication may indeed potentially enhance fitness for an organism. But I have trouble with understanding the claim that this exhibits an increase in information??

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

Yeahhhhh. Right. You recommend I should give any of these the time of day? Do they compare?

[EricMH (Eric Holloway)]

@Klax

You recommend I should give any of these the time of day? Do they compare?

I would say that Darwinism is such a bad explanation that any outlandish theory that provides even a smidge of teleology is infinitely better from a Bayesian perspective. Probably why we see such an influx of mystical irrational woo theories. In an important respect they are fundamentally better at explaining reality than our Darwinism materialism concepts.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

I don’t do woo, so Darwin it is. As Alfred Russell Lord Wallace told him when he admitted to being fazed by organs of perfection like the mammalian eye’s it’s just our lack of (rational) imagination. If you come up with a better antithesis, your Nobel awaits.

[DennisVenema]

@Daniel_Fisher

Then I fear I still don’t understand how any duplication event, by itself , can be claimed as an increase of information.

Most of the examples I’ve discussed involve duplication and divergence.

In the case of amylase gene duplications within a single genome, they increase the amount of enzyme present, which enables better acquisition of nutrients from starchy foods, and came under selection (indicating they provided a benefit for survival/reproduction). So that’s a new benefit - it didn’t exist before the duplication events - and it came about from duplicated genetic information - the gene for the amylase enzyme.

Call it what you will, it is what evolution does.