Intelligent Design - another failure

[ThePhoenix]

The integral of the cube root of cos(x) might be irreducably complex, as in it cannot be solved as the sum of its parts. Hmm, I wonder, is that an example?

 

[mythbuster]

The integral of the cube root of cos(x) might be irreducably complex, as in it cannot be solved as the sum of its parts. Hmm, I wonder, is that an example?

LOL, the free thinker strikes!

 

[mythbuster]

Let's put it this way, there is nothing Darwinian selection can't do.

Let me explain that. Darwinian selection is the ONLY way to get design. The question is simply whether that process is done in the mind of an intelligent entity or whether it happens outside such a mind. .

This quote was edited by moi.

So do you think that the mindless Darwinian process produced the mind, our mind?

 

[The Bellman]

This quote was edited by moi.

So do you think that the mindless Darwinian process produced the mind, our mind?

Of course it did, just as it produced every other mind on the planet.

 

[ThePhoenix]

LOL, the free thinker strikes!

Why thanks. I figured that that might be more fun then "TEH EYE!!1!1." Of course most biological processes don't require complex integrals.

 

[Light in the Darkness]

So do you think that the mindless Darwinian process produced the mind, our mind?

Considering the wide array of things that it has produced, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't have.

 

[Jet Black]

Eh, that's the worst arguement I ever heard. No wing could possibly lift us off the ground. Ergo, no wings!

what a terribly designed universe in which wings cannot lift us from the ground.

 

[ThePhoenix]

what a terribly designed universe in which wings cannot lift us from the ground.

Dude, they can. Just look for a planet with .1 g, and you're fine!

 

[DerekZoolander]

Let's put it this way, there is nothing Darwinian selection can't do.

A question from the less educated among us...forgive me if i take this statement too literally...

How does Darwinian selection account for the presence of genetic information? I've been doing some reading, and would love to hear others opinions on this question...or to find some good sources to check out...

 

[Jet Black]

Dude, they can. Just look for a planet with .1 g, and you're fine!

what a terribly designed universe in which earth is not that planet

 

[ThePhoenix]

what a terribly designed universe in which earth is not that planet

Admit it - you really don't want to think of what sort of weaponry humans would come up with if we could fly. Burning oil takes on a whole new dimension. I'm inclined to think we have a kind God, who kept us on the ground so we could at least hurt ourselves less.

Plus, if you really want to fly I have a few suggestions. Yeah, the key is getting high

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa

So in other words, for you, there is nothing nature can not do, no level of sophistication that a creator, if one existed, that would impress you?

I am saying that there is no design that Darwinian selection can't make.

Mythbuster, Darwinian selection is the only method of getting design. The only question is whether the process takes place in the "mind" of a sentient being or on its own outside that mind. So, even if God were to "design", He would do so by Darwinian selection.

The question is whether there is anything in the universe that is an obviously manufactured artifact. That is, made somewhere else and placed here in its present form. The answer is yes, there are lots of artifacts on the planet that were made by humans. We can tell this because there is no process in the environment that could make them.

That's the key: process in the environment. So, if I saw Paley's watch on the heath I would indeed conclude it was manufactured. Because there is no process on the heath that could have produced it.

However, in looking at plants and animals, there is a process in the environment that can produce the designs in them: Darwinian selection. Therefore I cannot conclude that they were manufactured by what you call a "creator". The problem is that ID tries to look only at the object -- watch or animal -- to decide if it is manufactured. ID ignores the environment. So, it doesn't matter the complexity of plants and animals -- I can't conclude they were manufactured by an ID. They were "created", but created by Darwinian selection.

Show me the talking pulsar Dembski talks about and then I can conclude ID.

 

[mythbuster]

A question from the less educated among us...forgive me if i take this statement too literally...

How does Darwinian selection account for the presence of genetic information? I've been doing some reading, and would love to hear others opinions on this question...or to find some good sources to check out...

Zoo,

Take two compact disks, one filled with information and one that is blank.

Which one weighs more?

Just an entertaining question.

 

[mythbuster]

I am saying that there is no design that Darwinian selection can't make... to decide if it is manufactured. ID ignores the environment. So, it doesn't matter the complexity of plants and animals -- I can't conclude they were manufactured by an ID. They were "created", but created by Darwinian selection.

Show me the talking pulsar Dembski talks about and then I can conclude ID.

I hope you don't mind that I chop up your posts.

Anyway we just disagree on what Darwinian selection can and can't do.
I work in a large aerospace company and it takes the concerted efforts of thousands of engineers coupled with centuries of accumulated technology to just get a relatively simple system up and running.

When I see nature I see engineereing at a level that makes our work look like childs play. I see sophisticated pumps, motors, RF sensors, pulsed transmission lines, information storage, image generatiion, chemical sensors, pressure sensors, navigation systems... and on and on. When the operation of the most simple cell requires hundreds (thousands?) of specific, unique interconnected parts, and they all have to be there or it is instant death; and each part is coded along with assembly instructions, I conclude design. And design based on what I know, not on what I don't know. (Gog)

So, I appreciate your posts. How about a new thread on information?

 

[Jet Black]

When I see nature I see engineereing at a level that makes our work look like childs play. I see sophisticated pumps, motors, RF sensors, pulsed transmission lines, information storage, image generatiion, chemical sensors, pressure sensors, navigation systems... and on and on. When the operation of the most simple cell requires hundreds (thousands?) of specific, unique interconnected parts, and they all have to be there or it is instant death; and each part is coded along with assembly instructions, I conclude design. And design based on what I know, not on what I don't know. (Gog)

well evolution is 4 billion years of selecting the best, every time. so it is kind of unsuprising that it would do such a good job at providing vehicles for the replicators.

 

[Jet Black]

Admit it - you really don't want to think of what sort of weaponry humans would come up with if we could fly. Burning oil takes on a whole new dimension. I'm inclined to think we have a kind God, who kept us on the ground so we could at least hurt ourselves less.

Plus, if you really want to fly I have a few suggestions. Yeah, the key is getting high

people might be a bit more chilled out if we could fly.

 

[lucaspa]

Anyway we just disagree on what Darwinian selection can and can't do. I work in a large aerospace company and it takes the concerted efforts of thousands of engineers coupled with centuries of accumulated technology to just get a relatively simple system up and running.

Don't you use genetic algorithms in your part of the aerospace industry? Boeing does, and it designs parts of airplanes for them that they aren't capable of designing themselves. Genetic algorithms are Darwinian selection.
5. CW Petit, Touched by nature: putting evolution to work on the assembly line. US News and World Report, 125: 43-45, July 27, 1998. Boeing engineers had Darwinian selection design a wing forthem for a jet to carry 600 passengers but have a wing the same size as a 747.

When I see nature I see engineereing at a level that makes our work look like childs play.

Right, which is why human engineers use Darwinian selection when the design problem is too tough for them.

Here's some more examples:
1. Nature doesn't make DNA sequences that are also enzymes. So we have no idea even where to start in designing a DNA enzyme. But Joyce and co-workers simply started out with random DNA sequences, tested them for any enzymatic activity, kept those that did, and then introduced random changes in the sequence each generation. Each generation the sequences were tested against the environment of enzymatic activity. Now there is a whole family of DNA enzymes, some of which will be used on patients.
8. FS Santiago, HC Lowe, MM Kavurma, CN Chesterman, A Baker, DG Atkins,LM Khachigian, New DNA enzyme targeting Egr-1 mRNA inhibits vascular smooth muscle proliferation and regrowth after injury. Nature Medicine 5:1264-1269, 1999. Used Darwinian selection to design a DNA enzyme (not found in nature) that degrades mRNA for use in treating hyperplasia after balloon arthroplasty. Humans have no idea what the nucleotide sequence of the DNA enzyme because they didn't make it --Darwinian selection did.
20. Breaker RR, Joyce GF.A DNA enzyme that cleaves RNA. Chem Biol 1994 Dec;1(4):223-9
21. Ronald R Breaker, Gerald FA Joyce DNA enzyme with Mg2+-dependent RNA phosphoesterase activity Chemistry & Biology 1995, 2:655-660.

In the computer industry, Darwinian selection is being used to make computers that, quite frankly, humans don't know how they work! But they do.
3. G Taubes, Evolving a conscious machine. Discover 19: 72-79. June1998. Uses a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) chip that can reprogram its architecture. Adrian Thompson of Univ. of Suxxex used Darwinianselection to have chip write its own architecture to solve problems. First problem was to distiguish between 1 kiloHz and 10 kHz sound. Allocated only 100 logic elements out of 4,096. Chip did the job withonly 32. Thompson can't figure out how. A chip designed by a human would require 10 to 100 times as many logic elements -- or at least access to aclock -- to perform the same task. "There are properties that humans have great trouble designing into a system, like being very efficient, using small amounts of power, or being fault tolerant. Evolution can cope withthem all."-- Thompson.

Finally, Darwinian selection is making inventions that humans can't even conceive of.
24. Jr Koza, MA Keane, MJ Streeter, Evolving inventions. Scientific American, 52-59, Feb 2003 check out www.genetic-programming.com

and each part is coded along with assembly instructions, I conclude design. And design based on what I know, not on what I don't know.

So, all in all your argument comes down to:
1. Personal incredulity.
2. Ignorance of what is happening in your field of engineering.

Finally, as to that "wonderful" engineering you see in organisms, here's a joke you might appreciate:
Three engineers are discussing the human body: an electrical engineer, a hydraulic engineer, and a civil engineer. The electrical engineer says "The human body was designed by an electrical engineer. Look at the complex of wires that carry electrical impulses that are the nerves and brain." The hydraulic engineer says "No, the human body was designed by a hydraulic engineer. Look at the magnificent pump that is the heart and the series of pipes that are the blood vessels." The civil engineer then says "You're both wrong. The human body was designed by a civil engineer. Who else would run a toxic waste pipe through the middle of a recreation area?"

 

[lucaspa]

A question from the less educated among us...forgive me if i take this statement too literally...

How does Darwinian selection account for the presence of genetic information? I've been doing some reading, and would love to hear others opinions on this question...or to find some good sources to check out...

Here it is:

Dembski << 1"Suppose that an organism in reproducing generates N offspring, and that of these N offspring M succeed in reproducing. The amount of information introduced through selection is then -log2(M/N). Let me stress that this formula is not an case of misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds universally and is non-mysterious. Take a simple non-biological example. If I am sitting at a radio transmitter, and can transmit only zeros and ones, then every time I transmit a zero or one, I choose between two possibilities, selecting precisely one of them. Here N equals 2 and M equals 1. The information -log2(M/N) thus equals -log2(1/2) = 1, i.e., 1 bit of information n is introduced every time I transmit a zero or one. This is of course as things should be. Now this example from communication theory is mathematically isomorphic to the case of cell-division where only one of the daughter cells goes on to reproduce. On the other hand, if both daughter cells go on to reproduce, then N equals M equals 2, and thus -log2(M/N) = -log2(2/2) = 0, indicating that selection, by failing to eliminate any possibility failed also to introduce new information. " >>

I've done some calculations with Dembski's equation. Note the "if" that I bolded. But that "if" does not hold in real populations. Let's look at Darwin's formulation of selection again.
"IF, during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be disputed; IF there be, owing to the high geometric powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; THEN, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I THINK IT WOULD BE A MOST EXTRAORDINARY FACT IF NO VARIATION EVER HAD OCCURRED USEFUL TO EACH BEINGS WELFARE, in the same ways so many variations have occurred useful to man. But IF variations useful to any organic being do occur, ASSUREDLY individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." [Origin, p 127 1st ed.]

Now, I bolded one of Darwin's "ifs", but this one says that more offspring are produced than those who actually reproduce. So, let's do some calculations on Dembski's equation looking at these numbers.
1. In a population, there are 4 offspring born but selection eliminates 3 and only one reproduces. So we have N = 4 and M = 1. -log(2) (M/N) = -log(2) (1/4) = -(-2) = 2. We have gained 2 "bits" of information in this generation. Selection does increase information.
2. Let's take a more radical example. An antibiotic kills 95% of the population. So we have 5 bacteria that can reproduce out of 100. N = 100, M =5. -log(2) (5/100) = -log(2) (.05) = -(-4.3) = 4.3. Now information has increased 4.3 "bits". The more severe the selection, the greater the increase in information. Not exactly what Dembski said.
3. Let's take a less severe example. A selection pressure such that of 100 individuals, 99 survive to reproduce. -log(2) (99/100) = -log(2) (.99) = - (-0.01) = 0.01.
So now we have only an increase of 0.01 "bits" in this one generation due to selection. But remember, selection is cumulative. Take this over 1,000 generations and we have an increase of 10 "bits". Now, Nilsson and Pelger have estimated, using conservative parameters, that it would take 364,000 generations to evolve an eye. D-E Nilsson and S Pelger, A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B. 256: 53-58, 1994. Taking that over our calculations shows that the eye represents an increase of 3,640 "bits" of information.
Finally, note that selection must result in an increase of information by Dembski's equation. Any fraction always has a negative logarithm. With the negative sign in front of the logarithm (-log) that means that the value for information must be positive as long as selection is operative. The only way to get loss of information is for the number of individuals that reproduce (M) to be greater than the number born (N). This is obviously not possible.

 

[lucaspa]

Mythbuster, did you even bother to read the paper I posted on how Darwinian selection can make IC structures? If not, please do so. If you did, please show us where the authors are in error.

 

[mythbuster]

Don't you use genetic algorithms in your part of the aerospace industry?

No we do not. And you can be assured that behind the above method there are some very big brained people solving the everyday details of manufacturing. We do have mathematical models that try and get close to reality. But behind all the models are creative, problemsolving, intuitive, risk-taking, curious, analyzing dreaming, humans.

Right, which is why human engineers use Darwinian selection when the design problem is too tough for them.

Things are not so simple that all we need to do is apply Darwinin selection and then no problem is too tough. I have a >20GHz (K band) RF chain that needs to fit in a 1" X 1" X 4", box. I need 5dBm output power over -20C to 70C. And I have very tight (< 50dBc) spur specs. The power can only vary 1dB over all conditions over the entire 10+ year lifespan in a very harsh high radiation environment. We will thermal cycle this thing for weeks, we will shake it and bake it, We will freeze it under a vacuum, spray it with RF. There is a list of specifications that goes on for several pages. And we want to make a buck. This is not a profit free zone.

Armies of engineers and business weenies are looking for a better way. If you really had a better way than you would not be here talking to us. Your time would be priceless as you solve all the worlds engineering problems.

Here's some more examples:
1. Nature doesn't make DNA sequences that are also enzymes. So we have no idea even where to start in designing a DNA enzyme. But Joyce and co-workers simply started out with random DNA sequences, tested them for any enzymatic activity, kept those that did, and then introduced random changes in the sequence each generation. Each generation the sequences were tested against the environment of enzymatic activity. Now there is a whole family of DNA enzymes, some of which will be used on patients.

Some starting point! Two big brained scientists with a purpose and the highest data density structure in the known universe. Nature has no purpose, it does not know where it is going, and can't select for unknown future goals. All the examples you cite require humans with a specific purpose.

So, all in all your argument comes down to:
1. Personal incredulity.
2. Ignorance of what is happening in your field of engineering.

And I am proud to be incredibly ignorant.

Peace.