Differing Models on the Origin of Higher Taxa

[Cavemonster]

For one thing, your summary of "Creationism" contains no mention of a supernatural creator or god, which is included in every dictionary and encyclopedia definition.

 

[marplots]

What does Creation add, that is missing from Evolution?

Well, TOE is about how things happened -- an historical narrative. Creationism is more about why things happened --underlying purpose. It is the difference between the physics of how a baseball came to land in the second baseman's glove (the curve it followed, the speed and kinetic energy) and the question, "Why did he throw the ball to second base?" In a sense, they are different comments on the same result.

In many forms, Creationism also leads to another consideration that is missing from TOE: the compulsion to tithe.

 

[Wowbagger]

Creationism is more about why things happened --underlying purpose.

So, what were the Creator's motives in creating life?

Using the findings of I.D., can you tell us what the "purpose" of life is, then?

In biochemistry, we observe that self-catalytic systems do not need an intelligent entity to get started, nor to continue replicating, in nature.

At which points was the Creator forced to intervene with chemistry, to get life I as we know it going? What did He need to do, that could not have been done by a natural process, to get what He wanted?

It sounds like you accept the findings of evolution as a science, but believe it is an incomplete one. Am I to assume you do NOT think I.D. supercedes Darwinism, then?

Either way, what empirical facts does I.D. bring to the table, in our understanding of life, that Evolution is completely missing out on?

In many forms, Creationism also leads to another consideration that is missing from TOE: the compulsion to tithe.

Altruistic contribution to a supporting community seems to be fairly well covered by The Theory of Evolution, as part of the survival strategy of highly sociable entities.

What does Creationism add to our understanding of the concept?

 

[marplots]

So, what were the Creator's motives in creating life?

Using the findings of I.D., can you tell us what the "purpose" of life is, then?

The way I understand it is that the purpose is embodied in the result. In the same sense that the purpose of a door stop is embodied in what a door stop does and can only be detected this way. While this is circular, it mirrors the explanations from TOE -- the reason some trait exists is that it beat out some other trait. Fitness is then seen as demonstrated by what exists, not what what we could imagine should exist or might be better. In the same way that you might say the purpose of evolution is to explore the space of possible life, the ID claim would be that the purpose of creation is just what you can discover around you -- the world is as it is because it was designed to be that way.

In biochemistry, we observe that self-catalytic systems do not need an intelligent entity to get started, nor to continue replicating, in nature.

True enough. However, you are left wondering (or maybe not) if that is the only explanation. Surely you would agree that there may be more than one way to reach the same result? The dilemma is whether we can ferret out that a certain pile of rocks happened to stack up the way they did because they fell that way or whether those same rocks were placed intentionally by some means in that order. Either, or some combination, may be so.

At which points was the Creator forced to intervene with chemistry, to get life I as we know it going? What did He need to do, that could not have been done by a natural process, to get what He wanted?

I don't know.

It sounds like you accept the findings of evolution as a science, but believe it is an incomplete one. Am I to assume you do NOT think I.D. supercedes Darwinism, then?

I do not. In fact, I find very little that is compelling in ID. I was speaking philosophically and somewhat as the devil's advocate. I am interested in how the two groups understand the world. I am at my roots a materialist and an atheist.

Either way, what empirical facts does I.D. bring to the table, in our understanding of life, that Evolution is completely missing out on?

None that I can support. There has been some inroads with information theory, but I think these are rather ham-handed. I would like to know if design can be measured or detected empirically. I think that is worth exploring -- I wish people with better training were doing it.

Altruistic contribution to a supporting community seems to be fairly well covered by The Theory of Evolution, as part of the survival strategy of highly sociable entities.

This is an excellent example of how the reasoning appears circular to me. Suppose you found a society bereft of altruism (or considered infants with a more selfish nature) couldn't we then construct an evolutionary rationale for the opposite behavior?

What does Creationism add to our understanding of the concept?

I think it adds personification and gives people hope in this sense: if there is an author and a purpose, there may be an "out" from increasing entropy and heat death. But that is too general and doesn't suffice. I can only fall back on the difference between a fact (TOE) and the stories we tell (creationism) to give meaning to the facts. There is a whole dimension where evolution is mute -- eugenics and the morality of controlling our own evolution is answered by creationists as morally bankrupt and thwarting some higher plan. It would give a reason to preserve species for instance, a layer of meaning beyond what evolution addresses (or is meant to).

 

[Dinwar]

In the same sense that the purpose of a door stop is embodied in what a door stop does and can only be detected this way.

No. I can pick up a door stop. I can examine it and realize "This is meant for stopping doors". There actually IS a door stop. No Creationist presents evidence of their god outside of the Bible and vague notions about biology (and ID advocates fall into this as well).

In the same way that you might say the purpose of evolution is to explore the space of possible life,

This statement is simply false. Evolution demonstrably does NOT explore the space of possible life, either in fitness space or morphospace. It's a curious fact of paleontology that morphospace always has unoccupied morphologies.

Evolution has NO purpose. It simply is.

The dilemma is whether we can ferret out that a certain pile of rocks happened to stack up the way they did because they fell that way or whether those same rocks were placed intentionally by some means in that order. Either, or some combination, may be so.

This is sophistry. Sure, you COULD argue that some intelligent agent is responsible for creating rocks the way they are, but then you'd have to explain why the agent put them in precisely the conditions predicted by the Principles of Stratigraphy. Oh, and you also have to DEFINE the agent, something that's rarely if ever done. And then you have to demonstrate that such an agent exists. This has never been done.

There has been some inroads with information theory,

Not really. Creationists/ID advocates missunderstand information theory, and the math behind it ignores biological realities. It's trivially easy to add information to a genome--a double-crossover event does it all the time. As an aside, this is also an explanation for irreducible complexity (there are several).

This is an excellent example of how the reasoning appears circular to me. Suppose you found a society bereft of altruism (or considered infants with a more selfish nature) couldn't we then construct an evolutionary rationale for the opposite behavior?

The error you're making here is context dropping. In some populations altruistic behavior is an advantage; in other populations it's not. You're attempting to extrapolate beyond the population in question, to a universal statement. You can't do that. Each individual population is under some selective pressures, and each must be evaluated according to its local, changing environment. Sometimes altruism benefits (well, reciprocal altruism, to be precise); sometimes selfishness does, but it's always for that one population.

I think it adds personification and gives people hope in this sense: if there is an author and a purpose, there may be an "out" from increasing entropy and heat death.

This is entirely irrelevant to a scientific theory about biodiversity. It's a common argument, but it's the equivalent of "I like toast, therefore Creationism".

There is a whole dimension where evolution is mute -- eugenics and the morality of controlling our own evolution is answered by creationists as morally bankrupt and thwarting some higher plan. It would give a reason to preserve species for instance, a layer of meaning beyond what evolution addresses (or is meant to).

Until you demonstrate a Creator, this "meaning" is built on a lie, or at least an absence of data. I mean, alcohol brings comfort to many people--that doesn't mean we should all be constantly drunk. And Creationism does not constrain itself to telling stories meant to give meaning to the facts of evolution. Creationism, as illustrated by several court trials, is a denial of evolution based on religion. There's no acceptance of the facts involved, and it therefore cannot explain them. It'd be nice if Creationism would constrain itself to what you're attempting to define it as, but Creationists do not do so.

 

[Wowbagger]

I was speaking philosophically and somewhat as the devil's advocate.

Your role as Devil's advocate is noted. But, if you don't mind, I will respond to your comments as if you meant everything, for the benefit of lurkers who might think along the lines you are presenting.

The way I understand it is that the purpose is embodied in the result. In the same sense that the purpose of a door stop is embodied in what a door stop does and can only be detected this way.

We know what a doorstop is based on the context of what we know about doors, and perhaps knowledge of what typically holds them open. Without that context, it would be difficult to discern what the device was; though not impossible, if one were to investigate how it could be made and used in the society they acquired the item from.

What aspects about life can we discern as unique to the purposes of the Intelligent Designer?

Fitness is then seen as demonstrated by what exists, not what what we could imagine should exist or might be better.

Only to a first approximation.

One of the powers of evolution, as a framework for thinking, is how it allows us to think about how changes in selection pressures would alter the pathways for what constitutes higher fitness... and in some cases we can even search for evidence of those alternatives in the field.
In fact, this approach is often useful for making new discoveries about how parasites work, in the wild. And, of course, for predicting the future pathways of various pathogens.

In short: The "circular reasoning" you are pointing to in Evolution can be resolved through additional lines of investigation, that make new predictions.

What does Intelligent Design or Creationism add to the discussion, here?

How can I.D./Creationism resolve its circular reasoning?

True enough. However, you are left wondering (or maybe not) if that is the only explanation. Surely you would agree that there may be more than one way to reach the same result?

Okay, I agree (at least for argument sake) that there could be more than one way to get the same results.

Is the argument for Creationism really reduced to this sort of thing: "Oh yes, it is possible for natural processes such as Evolution to produce all of the wide variety of life we see around us. But, since we think God intervened somewhere, anyway, we are going to stick with that idea... And call it 'science'."

I don't know.

Perhaps we should get one of our Creationist friends to help us answer this.

randman, you still here?

There has been some inroads with information theory, but I think these are rather ham-handed.

Can you elaborate on this, perhaps?

Suppose you found a society bereft of altruism (or considered infants with a more selfish nature) couldn't we then construct an evolutionary rationale for the opposite behavior?

Keep in mind one thing: It would be ludicrous to say "Evolution causes altruism". It would be much more accurate and sane to state "Many, (but not all), of the survival strategies that emerge from the process of Evolution result in a trend towards altruism".

Independent studies from game theory actually show us under what conditions we can expect altruism to increase or decrease, without even going into evolution of the system.

If the concepts of game theory hold true, we should be able to find evidence for that in the natural world: And we do. Richard Dawkins' book, The Selfish Gene is, despite its title, all about such discoveries in the wild.

Trends in game theory strategy happen to mathematically match those of survival strategies found in life forms. And, they even change and transform in ways predicted by game theory, as the circumstances of the "game" change.

If we were to find a society that lacked altruism, game theory can help us predict under what circumstances such a group could have emerged from - independently of any evolutionary studies on the matter.

In short: independent lines of investigation, that do not involve evolution, can resolve the "circular reasoning" you detected in that argument.

I think it adds personification and gives people hope in this sense: if there is an author and a purpose, there may be an "out" from increasing entropy and heat death. But that is too general and doesn't suffice. I can only fall back on the difference between a fact (TOE) and the stories we tell (creationism) to give meaning to the facts.

So, Creationism makes people feel better.

Okay, there is value in that. But, how does that contribute to science?!

There is a whole dimension where evolution is mute -- eugenics and the morality of controlling our own evolution is answered by creationists as morally bankrupt and thwarting some higher plan. It would give a reason to preserve species for instance, a layer of meaning beyond what evolution addresses (or is meant to).

But, does Creationism add any value to the science of these things, or do its arguments rest entirely in philosophy and theology?

You do realize that eugenics was never really a part of Theory of Evolution, right? If I were to say the Christianity leads to joining the KKK, how would that make you feel? (I don't actually think it does.)

 

[marplots]

Your role as Devil's advocate is noted. But, if you don't mind, I will respond to your comments as if you meant everything, for the benefit of lurkers who might think along the lines you are presenting.

Excellent. I should say I am finding this a bit more difficult than I thought, mostly because of the solid and talented responses.

We know what a doorstop is based on the context of what we know about doors, and perhaps knowledge of what typically holds them open. Without that context, it would be difficult to discern what the device was; though not impossible, if one were to investigate how it could be made and used in the society they acquired the item from.

What aspects about life can we discern as unique to the purposes of the Intelligent Designer?

Correct. And the context, for ID, would include humans as the pinnacle of the process. So, the purpose of intelligent design (call it a provisional purpose) is us. A nice play on words there -- Intelligent design designing intelligence.

One of the powers of evolution, as a framework for thinking, is how it allows us to think about how changes in selection pressures would alter the pathways for what constitutes higher fitness... and in some cases we can even search for evidence of those alternatives in the field.
In fact, this approach is often useful for making new discoveries about how parasites work, in the wild. And, of course, for predicting the future pathways of various pathogens.

In short: The "circular reasoning" you are pointing to in Evolution can be resolved through additional lines of investigation, that make new predictions.

The devil is in the details. If we are to claim that the wonderfully clean hydrodynamics of the shark give it an advantage in alternate body morphology, then we are left wondering at the variety of shapes we find in fishes. I take it that the variety is not just a plain result of fitness as I, someone outside of the process would view it, but fitness available to those competing organisms based on some random change -- all organisms cannot access all solutions. To find out which solution was arrived at, you simply have to look and see what resulted. However, the essential details are missing, having disappeared into the mists of history and its accidents.

For the doorstop, I can envision other versions and inquire. The history is more recent. QWERTY would be a good example here. The letter placement on my keyboard has aspects of both design with purpose and evolution (in the sense that it resists extinction and survives). In either case, the doorstop or the keyboard, if I understand you correctly, we can look beyond the fact of the thing and impute purpose by querying the creator. I think creationists would agree and look for answers outside of the system as well.

What does Intelligent Design or Creationism add to the discussion, here?

How can I.D./Creationism resolve its circular reasoning?

For both questions -- by stepping beyond the fact of a thing and into a larger context. That said, I am taking the tack that creationism is focused on finding a purpose and working from there instead of the other way round. Creationism shouldn't assume any particular mechanism and adopt all that science unearths.

Is the argument for Creationism really reduced to this sort of thing: "Oh yes, it is possible for natural processes such as Evolution to produce all of the wide variety of life we see around us. But, since we think God intervened somewhere, anyway, we are going to stick with that idea... And call it 'science'."

Pretty much, except calling it science mars it a bit.

Keep in mind one thing: It would be ludicrous to say "Evolution causes altruism". It would be much more accurate and sane to state "Many, (but not all), of the survival strategies that emerge from the process of Evolution result in a trend towards altruism".

I think that example is a poor one, if only because of the recursive nature of cultures -- I think it asks rather too much of evolution to give us much of value in what I suppose has a too chaotic feel about it. Of course, my reading is very dated in this and sociology/anthropology informed with evolutionary principles may have made significant advances that I am unaware of.

Independent studies from game theory actually show us under what conditions we can expect altruism to increase or decrease, without even going into evolution of the system.

Except, in humans, the mini-maxes do not work out correctly because of psychological and cultural influences. I'll refer you to the cultural variation found in a typical altruism game, the ultimatum game (Wiki) across cultures. Also, a dated, but still good discussion on the failings of evolutionary psychology: http://web.mac.com/awcarus/A.W._Carus/Hum_Pl_8_files/BullerEP-TiCS05.pdf

I should note that I am not an expert (or even close) in this field, only an interested outsider.

If the concepts of game theory hold true, we should be able to find evidence for that in the natural world: And we do. Richard Dawkins' book, The Selfish Gene is, despite its title, all about such discoveries in the wild.

Trends in game theory strategy happen to mathematically match those of survival strategies found in life forms. And, they even change and transform in ways predicted by game theory, as the circumstances of the "game" change.

I agree and there are some great examples where optimal solutions have been arrived at in nature. However, the difficulty comes with the notion of "strategy" as a thinking, cognitive act, rather than instinctual. If it is instinctual, we are left at the same place -- did it evolve or was it designed to be so?

If we were to find a society that lacked altruism, game theory can help us predict under what circumstances such a group could have emerged from - independently of any evolutionary studies on the matter.

In short: independent lines of investigation, that do not involve evolution, can resolve the "circular reasoning" you detected in that argument.

I risk creating a straw man here, but from my point of view, behavior is not reducible to genes and the inherent plasticity (along with pseudo-Lamarckian epi-genetics) of behaviors may influence inherited traits much more than originally thought. I know that these concepts may be adopted, on the one hand, by subsuming "everything that happens" under the catch-all environment and epigenetics under either "local environment" or "still genes." And here's a good example of behavioral variation in the mouse with a genetic component estimated at only 27%: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12667496

The criticism I am making is that with the wide variety of variables and the non-linear dynamics (claimed by me without proof or cite), evolution is the wrong tool for analyzing complex behaviors, including higher emotions and moral behavior. I can't make a case that creationism does it either, except to cite the idea of an outside moral authority/creator as one cultural influence.

So, Creationism makes people feel better.

Okay, there is value in that. But, how does that contribute to science?!

It doesn't, except maybe historically. I'll claim the enlightenment (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/#RelEnl) was at least in part driven by the idea that a created world should be coherent and explorable by thinking men... perhaps leading to science as we know it today.

But, does Creationism add any value to the science of these things, or do its arguments rest entirely in philosophy and theology?

The only value I can think of is by way of challenge and response from the TOE (and as far as I know, these have all been successfully met). Other than that, I'd agree that it isn't a scientific theory at all, but a philosophical and theological stance.

You do realize that eugenics was never really a part of Theory of Evolution, right? If I were to say the Christianity leads to joining the KKK, how would that make you feel? (I don't actually think it does.)

I do know that eugenics is not a part of TOE. That was the point. I was claiming there was a value in a dimension other than a straight, fact based narrative. I'll agree that conclusions drawn from creationism (a higher and lower type of human) could very well lead to joining the KKK. This would be akin to using TOE as a rationale to kill off the genetically malformed (or keep them from breeding at least). These misuses of concepts does, however, show the power they have.

Side note: Is there some way to limit the length on these? I feel like we are reaching the boundaries of the medium.

 

[Dinwar]

Correct. And the context, for ID, would include humans as the pinnacle of the process. So, the purpose of intelligent design (call it a provisional purpose) is us. A nice play on words there -- Intelligent design designing intelligence.

Two problems. First, we're NOT the pinnacle. We're ONE OF the pinnacles. Remember, every other organism has had just as much time in the evolutionary incubator as we have (and most have had more generations). Second, you're still postulating a designer without defining it. You have no mechanism.

The devil is in the details. If we are to claim that the wonderfully clean hydrodynamics of the shark give it an advantage in alternate body morphology, then we are left wondering at the variety of shapes we find in fishes. I take it that the variety is not just a plain result of fitness as I, someone outside of the process would view it, but fitness available to those competing organisms based on some random change -- all organisms cannot access all solutions. To find out which solution was arrived at, you simply have to look and see what resulted. However, the essential details are missing, having disappeared into the mists of history and its accidents.

Let me put it this way: How do you cook a pair of needle-nose pliers?

You're still taking what applies to one species and attempting to extrapolate to a universal statement, which is impossible. A streamlined bullet shape works for some sharks because of the selective pressures on those sharks. Other fish have other shapes because they have different selective pressures.

Also, you should look up Devonian sharks. You can't say "Sharks look like ____", because they don't share shapes.

That said, I am taking the tack that creationism is focused on finding a purpose and working from there instead of the other way round. Creationism shouldn't assume any particular mechanism and adopt all that science unearths.

If you re-define Creationism you can make any argument you want. However, that doesn't mean that your argument is valid. Creationism is a specific set of concepts, and your definition is not it.

The criticism I am making is that with the wide variety of variables and the non-linear dynamics (claimed by me without proof or cite), evolution is the wrong tool for analyzing complex behaviors, including higher emotions and moral behavior. I can't make a case that creationism does it either, except to cite the idea of an outside moral authority/creator as one cultural influence.

Except that 1) this isn't an explanation, because you still haven't defined the mechanism you're hypothesizing and 2) evolution CAN in fact explain complex behavior such as reciprocal altruism. I keep using that term because there are very good studies on that subject specifically.

The only value I can think of is by way of challenge and response from the TOE (and as far as I know, these have all been successfully met). Other than that, I'd agree that it isn't a scientific theory at all, but a philosophical and theological stance.

It's less than that. It's postulating an undefined magical being that poofed everything into existence--in other words, it's not an explanation at all until you define the creator you want to talk about. And it doesn't even offer serious challenges to evolution. The actual concepts lumped under Creationism were dealt with, by and large, 200+ years ago, many of them before Darwin wrote his book.

I was claiming there was a value in a dimension other than a straight, fact based narrative.

I'm sorry, but there is NO value in anything but facts as far as a scientific theory is concerned. A scientific theory is about facts, and that's it. The whole structure of science is a systematic attempt to remove biases and opinions from scientific thought. To re-introduce fictional (non-fact-based) narratives into the structure would be to abandon the structure.

Can you elaborate on this, perhaps?

I believe marplots is referencing (and please correct me if I'm wrong, because it would certainly change my response) the idea that the genetic code represents too much information for evolution to account for it, and that there's too many difficulties in adding information to the system. It's often tied to thermodynamics arguments by Creationists/ID advocates ("Adding information to the system violates the second law of TD; therefore God"). Unfortunately these arguments are typically made by people with little to no understanding of molecular biology. Information can easily be added to the genome through double-crossover events (well, not TOO easily--the code is fairly stable--but it happens more frequently than most realize, particularly those who've never even heard of it). Once you duplicate a gene through a double-crossover event you can mutate it in any way which doesn't outright kill the organism (and, if it's not expressed, even in was that would) without harming it, and if there's anything beneficial that arises the organism benefits from it (which is why I said it's an explanation for how irreducibly complex systems could arise).

So, Creationism makes people feel better.

Okay, there is value in that.

As I said, being drunk makes you feel better. By the logic of the quote you were responding to, sobriety is wrong. (Not saying that this is what the post was implying, just that the exact same line of reasoning leads to that conclusion.)

 

[Kotatsu]

I do know that eugenics is not a part of TOE. That was the point. I was claiming there was a value in a dimension other than a straight, fact based narrative. I'll agree that conclusions drawn from creationism (a higher and lower type of human) could very well lead to joining the KKK. This would be akin to using TOE as a rationale to kill off the genetically malformed (or keep them from breeding at least). These misuses of concepts does, however, show the power they have.

There could certainly be a value of such an axis, and evolutionary theory is not meant to, nor does it have any business, or even machinery, to provide such an axis. However, neither does creationism, as it contains the specific belief that if some facts of nature can be used to give undesirable results when applied to human society for political or religious reasons, then those fact are obviously lies, and the people who provide these facts are frauds. When the meaning attributed to facts by an ideology is "we don't like some possible bad implications of these facts so therefore the facts are lies", that ideology also has no business providing an axis to understand the facts.

 

[Tatyana]

I don't know but it's bloody funny watching everyone squirm around to avoid addressing any actual point in the OP. No quotes from the OP, no references to other texts which contradict it, (other than an armwave to a book saying it's in there somewhere). Just bald unsupported denials and strawmen. It's pretty pathetic really.

That's because for the most part, it is utter gobbley-gook.

I am guessing you are his wife?

 

[marplots]

I'm failing in my role as devil's advocate, but there are a few other things worth discussing.

Two problems. First, we're NOT the pinnacle. We're ONE OF the pinnacles. Remember, every other organism has had just as much time in the evolutionary incubator as we have (and most have had more generations). Second, you're still postulating a designer without defining it. You have no mechanism.

I think the first is assumed (the pinnacle part) and I've had some thoughts on a mechanism (later on in this post).

Let me put it this way: How do you cook a pair of needle-nose pliers?

This I've done, to remove a caked on crust of rust. You use a mild acid solution in water and boil, then follow with a hydrocarbon bath and massage (for the pliers).

You're still taking what applies to one species and attempting to extrapolate to a universal statement, which is impossible. A streamlined bullet shape works for some sharks because of the selective pressures on those sharks. Other fish have other shapes because they have different selective pressures.

Also, you should look up Devonian sharks. You can't say "Sharks look like ____", because they don't share shapes.

I think there are two good points here. The first smells of a god of the gaps, but is still worth looking at. I was extrapolating to a universal statement by way of analogy. Your claim is that this is inappropriate because each organism has followed a unique historical path to reach the current form (morphology is easier to talk about for lay people like me). But, here's the tough part -- the specific pressures are assumed and assumed to be different because the results are different. So, if a shark looked more like a barracuda, we would have to imagine there were selection pressures that led to that shape instead of another.

The idea works better in the terrestrial sphere where mountains and other landforms keep groups apart, less so in the ocean where the same geological barriers are missing. Are these preserved? The particular pressures we expect have to be there to drive the process toward one shape rather than another? I don't know. And this points out another difficulty for me at least. I'm assuming that selection pressures aren't visible and lost to history. I also had to look up your reference to Devonian sharks. I also slipped in a supposition about ocean environments not having the same ability to separate animals into different environments -- all this points out a problem.

The problem is that I cannot argue on the basis of an education in evolutionary biology, nor even general biology. If the proper answers are held in the knowledge base of these disciplines, I'm going to be ignorant of them. This is largely true for anyone arguing across theories. Often, I see this in practice when the (justifiable) criticism is that someone doesn't understand what evolution actually says. I think any "problem" I might come up with has already been investigated by those in the field and only serves as a weak, ineffectual blow, suitable for a conversation over a beer, but silly in a serious conversation. I only say all that because I'm going to take a shot at just such a thing below.

If you re-define Creationism you can make any argument you want. However, that doesn't mean that your argument is valid. Creationism is a specific set of concepts, and your definition is not it.

Except that 1) this isn't an explanation, because you still haven't defined the mechanism you're hypothesizing and 2) evolution CAN in fact explain complex behavior such as reciprocal altruism. I keep using that term because there are very good studies on that subject specifically.

Well, I got into this part of the discussion by proposing that creationists should adopt all the facts of evolution and apply a layer of intelligent shaping to that. So yes, I'm reshaping what I want the word to mean. I'd accept a better word.

It's less than that. It's postulating an undefined magical being that poofed everything into existence--in other words, it's not an explanation at all until you define the creator you want to talk about. And it doesn't even offer serious challenges to evolution. The actual concepts lumped under Creationism were dealt with, by and large, 200+ years ago, many of them before Darwin wrote his book.

I think it's actually important not to talk about a magical being, although some outside agency, with a purpose, is essential if creationism is to comment on moral issues. Holding the intelligence/being as undiscovered allows us to talk about process in the way Mendel could talk about inheritance without knowing about DNA.

I'm sorry, but there is NO value in anything but facts as far as a scientific theory is concerned. A scientific theory is about facts, and that's it. The whole structure of science is a systematic attempt to remove biases and opinions from scientific thought. To re-introduce fictional (non-fact-based) narratives into the structure would be to abandon the structure.

This is pretty powerful and I agree that it represents the ideal.

I believe marplots is referencing (and please correct me if I'm wrong, because it would certainly change my response) the idea that the genetic code represents too much information for evolution to account for it, and that there's too many difficulties in adding information to the system. It's often tied to thermodynamics arguments by Creationists/ID advocates ("Adding information to the system violates the second law of TD; therefore God"). Unfortunately these arguments are typically made by people with little to no understanding of molecular biology. Information can easily be added to the genome through double-crossover events (well, not TOO easily--the code is fairly stable--but it happens more frequently than most realize, particularly those who've never even heard of it). Once you duplicate a gene through a double-crossover event you can mutate it in any way which doesn't outright kill the organism (and, if it's not expressed, even in was that would) without harming it, and if there's anything beneficial that arises the organism benefits from it (which is why I said it's an explanation for how irreducibly complex systems could arise).

This is close. I'm also adding in the circumstantial context and recursion. So, for instance, some specific and unique local environment -- a tree falls on proto-X, killing it. Or, bird Y won't mate with bird Z because the sun isn't shining on its feathers when it dances. That was my claim for complexity, not simply allele shuffling but genetically influenced behaviors influencing a meta-environment, leading to inflation of selection pressures in the usual butterfly effect fashion. The result, I am claiming, would dramatically increase the time it would take for any useful mutation ("useful" is kinda smooshy in this as well) to "set."

As I said, being drunk makes you feel better. By the logic of the quote you were responding to, sobriety is wrong. (Not saying that this is what the post was implying, just that the exact same line of reasoning leads to that conclusion.)

Well, sex makes me feel better as well, but of the two, only sexual pleasure is considered a driver of evolution. Why isn't getting drunk one as well?

The mechanism I like for creationism, I'll call neo-creationism. Here's how it works. You (well, not you, but something/one) starts the ball rolling. You know that evolution will inflate historical coincidence in the chaotic manner I've mentioned above. Because the results of the process are unpredictable, neo-creationism says that this was allowed to occur without comment or intercession for some unknown time. Then, the tree/bush of life gets pruned by way of extinction. These can be directed and serve to shape the overall picture.

So, my neo-creationism has a kind of sculptor who chisels away at the biosphere with disease, disaster, and perhaps a bit of tweaking while simultaneously allowing new lifeforms to emerge. The ultimate aim is human level intelligence, something they/it know will eventually grow out of this process. A close example would be the creation of nylon-eating bacteria by humans when they established ponds with nylon manufacturing waste in them.

Granted, this wasn't foreseen, and the 'creation' was accidental, but the idea of using evolution to explore new properties has been applied elsewhere as well (is that true?).

How could I test this idea? I'd need to show that some outside agency was responsible for extinction events -- a tall order. Showing such a thing is possible isn't the same as showing it actually happened. The best bet would be looking at how humans arose. Any hand in the mix would show up in the role of a dog breeder who wants a dog with some general set of properties and selectively kills those who don't meet the breed standard they have in mind. So the best place to look would be in the later stages of human development and extinctions of earlier versions.

 

[Wowbagger]

I believe marplots is referencing (and please correct me if I'm wrong, because it would certainly change my response) the idea that the genetic code represents too much information for evolution to account for it, and that there's too many difficulties in adding information to the system.
<snip>
Unfortunately these arguments are typically made by people with little to no understanding of molecular biology. Information can easily be added to the genome through double-crossover events

Thought it might have been that. Informational increase and decrease in gnenes is well understood by evolutionary biologists, and I.D. (despite its claims) doesn't actually address generation or removal of information in genes, at all. Except, perhaps, in the vague sense that some Designer might have done it, but even there, there are no details to be mined.

Correct. And the context, for ID, would include humans as the pinnacle of the process. So, the purpose of intelligent design (call it a provisional purpose) is us. A nice play on words there -- Intelligent design designing intelligence.

1. How do we know that was the Designer's motives?

2. What does that imply about us, as a species? What can we expect, in our future, if we live on a planet priviledged for us?

3. How would such a conclusion account for any changes that might crop up in our species into the future?

4. Is any particular form or race of human the "true pinnacle"? How would we know?

If we are to claim that the wonderfully clean hydrodynamics of the shark give it an advantage in alternate body morphology, then we are left wondering at the variety of shapes we find in fishes.

Scale of body, and methods of swimming are part of the equation. We can show, independently of evolution studies, that for different sized animals, one shape is going to be more efficient than another. We can predict that those will more-likely be selected for.

The evolutionary heritage they cary is another. The emergence of "up/down" or "left/right" system of swimming motions, we see between underwater species, are often 'decided' by what sort of structure their body had before they became swimmers.

There could be outside influences as well: Competition, enviornmental factors, "accidents", etc. But, each of these is an element of the fitness landscape. Evolutionary thinking covers them fairly well. I.D. does not cover them, at all!

For the doorstop, I can envision other versions and inquire. The history is more recent. QWERTY would be a good example here. The letter placement on my keyboard has aspects of both design with purpose and evolution (in the sense that it resists extinction and survives). In either case, the doorstop or the keyboard, if I understand you correctly, we can look beyond the fact of the thing and impute purpose by querying the creator.

That much is correct! For the keyboard and the doorstop, we can Creators we can research. Even before we do that, we can understand the context by which these items came to be.

But, I.D. has neither: No positive evidence that there is a Creator to find, and more importantly: No context by which we can understand how we came to be via the Creator.

At best, all I.D. can do is "deduce" that a Creator had to be necessary, though that deduction doesn't lead to any novel predictions, since there is no empirical line of inquiry one can take in that direction.

At worst, I.D. asserts that a Creator had to be necessary. Though, that assertion does nothing, and goes nowhere, as far as solving scientific problems is concerned.

That said, I am taking the tack that creationism is focused on finding a purpose and working from there instead of the other way round.

Technically, I don't think they are really focused on finding a purpose. At least not scientifically. As I said, there is no empirical line of investigation there.

In fact, strangely enough, most of them do not assert any specific purposes, either. They seem to think such things are not as important as the assertion (or deduction) that a Designer must have been necessary, for something.

They do not even think that the identification of the Designer is even important, nor answering the question "who designed the Designer".

In short, they do not seek to answer the core questions of their own position.
Isn't that weird?!

Pretty much, except calling it science mars it a bit.

That is what they do. And, this is the Science forum.

If you want to talk strictly philosophy, we have a Philosophy forum for that.

I think that example is a poor one, if only because of the recursive nature of cultures -- I think it asks rather too much of evolution to give us much of value in what I suppose has a too chaotic feel about it. Of course, my reading is very dated in this and sociology/anthropology informed with evolutionary principles may have made significant advances that I am unaware of.

It was only a basic example, to demonstrate how one can resolve the seemingly "circular" nature of my statement.

The more important point, is that new knowledge about cultures can be acquired through this line of reasoning, and other related concepts. And, yet, thinking about it from an I.D. perspective adds nothing.

I agree and there are some great examples where optimal solutions have been arrived at in nature. However, the difficulty comes with the notion of "strategy" as a thinking, cognitive act, rather than instinctual. If it is instinctual, we are left at the same place -- did it evolve or was it designed to be so?

Water seeks the path of least resistance, on its path from the top of the mountain to the lake below. Was that act of "intelligence" all natural, or was the water imbued with such decision making power by a Designer?

behavior is not reducible to genes and the inherent plasticity (along with pseudo-Lamarckian epi-genetics) of behaviors may influence inherited traits much more than originally thought.

I agree that behavior is not, directly, reducible to genes. Behavior is the emergent property of living systems made of genes, and influenced by the environment. Both play a part. It does not matter, for our purposes, how much or little each one plays.

The more important point is that we can predict and understand the emergence of altruism in large groups, using ideas like game theory. And, game theory can be incorporated into the framework of evolution - perhaps on a larger scale than strictly genetic. And, doing so might not ever be perfect, of course.

But, I.D. adds nothing to the discussion. Nada. Zippo. Not even so much as a crumb of fresh insight. And, that is worse than "never perfect", when it comes to productivity in science.

The criticism I am making is that with the wide variety of variables and the non-linear dynamics (claimed by me without proof or cite), evolution is the wrong tool for analyzing complex behaviors, including higher emotions and moral behavior. I can't make a case that creationism does it either, except to cite the idea of an outside moral authority/creator as one cultural influence.

Correct.

Yes, there are certainly other lines of investigation one can take, other than Darwinian Evolution, to answer these things.

But, each one of them has one thing in common: They all measure natural phenomenon. Even if Evolution via Natural Selection cannot be applied to a problem, some other natural phenomenon can! And, that leaves us with less confidence that a Creator was necessary for anything.

Another thing they have in common is that they do not contradict the findings of evolution.

This is especially important when talking about the early stages of life, before Selection could take hold as a phenomenon. But, that is perhaps a topic for a different thread.

Side note: Is there some way to limit the length on these? I feel like we are reaching the boundaries of the medium.

It's called pithiness. We could both use some practice in it, I think.

 

[randman]

The dilemma is whether we can ferret out that a certain pile of rocks happened to stack up the way they did because they fell that way or whether those same rocks were placed intentionally by some means in that order.

Great comment. Forensic science is often about determining whether an intelligent agent is involved. IDers propose to apply the same to biology.

 

[randman]

Except you keep cramming evolution into one particular area and keep insisting that is only is about that one area.

Evoltion is much more as you keep ignoring.

Never insisted it is solely about sequential speciation. But that is how evos claim the higher taxa involved, and they have specific theories, monophyletic gradualism via NeoDarwinian mechanisms, for how such sequential speciation leads to the origin of the higher taxa.

 

[randman]

"Sequential" doesn't seem like a good word, to me, for some reason.

"Branching trees" of speciation sounds more accurate.

So you admit speciation is the process of evolving the higher taxa or not?

Yes or no will do, please.

 

[ehcks]

So you admit speciation is the process of evolving the higher taxa or not?

Yes or no will do, please.

That question means something different to you than to everyone else.

 

[Dancing David]

Never insisted it is solely about sequential speciation. But that is how evos claim the higher taxa involved, and they have specific theories, monophyletic gradualism via NeoDarwinian mechanisms, for how such sequential speciation leads to the origin of the higher taxa.

I gave you a list from Google of possible research papers, now support your assertion that that is what evolutionary biologists believe and specifically that is what 'neodarwinists' believe.

Unsupported assertion 3: who said that where?

 

[randman]

I gave you a list from Google of possible research papers, now support your assertion that that is what evolutionary biologists believe and specifically that is what 'neodarwinists' believe.

Unsupported assertion 3: who said that where?

Every single evolutionist (NeoDarwinian) paper there is accepts sequential speciation as the process that leads to the origin the higher taxa. You cannot find one paper without that assumption because that's basic evo theory. You can claim that is not the case but that's just because you are ignorant of basic evo theory, perhaps hopelessly so.

I will try once again to help you grasp such a basic concept. We'll see if you "get it."

Every species alive today was said to arrive here by another species evolving it. Every previous species is said to have evolved from another species and so on all the way back to the proposed common ancestor of all of life.

That's what NeoDarwinism (you call "evolution) posits.

The fact you cannot grasp the concept just means you failed to understand the most basic concept of common descent by NeoDarwinian mechanisms.

 

[Dancing David]

Kindly support your statement, this a point you have asserted but not demonstrated so here isa google link 'origins higher taxa':
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...axa+&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,14&as_ylo=&as_vis=1

So why don't you actaully read some of these and support your statement?

"ND posits sequential speciation however one wants to define species as the process that occurs evolving the higher taxa"
You can do it randman, I have asked you to support your assertion and it is in your OP, so put your words into effect, shows us where this is what modern evolutionary theory says.



You can do it!

If you think you can do it, or you think you can't do it, You are right.
-Henry Ford

You've done it before and you can do it now.
-Ralph Marston

You can do it... you can do it all night loong!
-Townie , The Waterboy

If you can dream it, you can do it.
Walt Disney

We can do it!
Dora the expolorer

Hi randman, here is a respons eto your OP, please to answer.

You keep asserting that 'neodarwinsist believe this', you have yet to
1. Define neodarwinism as a subset of evolutionary theory that has coherency or is used by evolutionary biologists.
2. Yet to state who you believe is currently a researchers that is a neodarwinist.
3. Cite a reference that a neodarwainist, as coherentlt defined by you made this statement.

Otherwise it become a falalcy of tautology, false dichotomy and over generalization.

1. So where is this nerodarwinism in surveys of current evolutionary biology, who uses the term where?

 

[ehcks]

...sequential speciation...

You still haven't defined what you mean when you ask this. From anyone else I'd take it as the entirely trivial statement that all life has evolved from one common ancestor.

But you seem to be implying that an entire species as a whole evolves through a specific series of sequential states.

What do you mean when you say "sequential speciation"?

ETA:

Every species alive today was said to arrive here by another species evolving it. Every previous species is said to have evolved from another species and so on all the way back to the proposed common ancestor of all of life.

More or less, except that a species doesn't evolve into another, a specific population of that species evolves.