Mechanism behind intelligent design uncovered?

[Dr Adequate]

He appears to be suggesting that Dawkins is saying that selfish genes will make us behave selfishly, but of course Dawkins goes out of his way to say that this is not what he is saying. Dawkins writes a good deal on altruism, anybody even slightly acquanted with Dawkins works would know this.

By a weird psirony, I'm re-reading that exact same book. Look at this:

The origin of altruism goes to the heart of the gene/culture debate that was launched in 1975 with the publication of EO Wilson's Sociobiology and, a year later, Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene. Sociobiology claims that human nature - and by extension human society - is rooted in our genes: we are, according to Dawkins, "lumbering robots" created "body and mind" by selfish genes.

This is indeed a vile distortion of Dawkins' views.

So either McFadden is commenting on Dawkins book without even a cursory reading, or he is deliberately misrepresenting Dawkins views.

Either way it is intellectually dishonest and this does not give me confidence in his behaviour in a scientific debate.

Yes.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Flick --- to amplify on my previous remarks, someone who provably get science wrong has given a link to someone who provably gets science wrong who has given a link to someone who provably gets science wrong. And you want us to discuss that.

You are listening to Chinese Whispers played by people who were wrong in the first place.

Go back to the first sources for science, if you are suspicious. When I came across the fundie nonsense about the second law of thermodynamics, I went to the nearest university library and read six introductory textbooks on thermodynamics, to make sure that I wasn't missing anything.

Your general "what is science" questions are intelligent. When you just quote some weird fundie website, then very often you are a fool quoting fools quoting fools quoting fools. You might have dropped this straight away. Anyone sufficiently ignorant of science to think that electromagnetism holds the atomic nucleus together is not even trying to tell the truth. What are the odds that the nutty sites she links to are going to be perfectly accurate?

 

[hgc]

... What are the odds that the nutty sites she links to are going to be perfectly accurate?

About the same as the odds of a flagellum self-assembling out of bits of bailing wire and chewing gum.

 

[stamenflicker]

Dr. A,

When you just quote some weird fundie website

Does this guy claim to be a Christian or even a theist? I'll back up and look... I tend view a person's claims before checking their creditials, cause creditials don't mean jack when it comes to being able to raise a point. I would think good science would be more interested in the claims than the researcher's values. Isn't that the idea of being blind? Looking at the data for the sake of the data?

And you want us to discuss that.

Umm, yes? At least be willing to discuss where he is wrong. You can't necessarily take a few sentences about Dawkins in a summary and assume he misunderstood him. He may only be pointing out the parts he thought were relevant to his discussion-- kind of like your posts from the Bible regarding the sun and the earth.

you are a fool quoting fools quoting fools quoting fools

Hmm. I may need a moment to catch your drift. Did I miss something in his bio:

He obtained his PhD at Imperial College London and went on to work on human genetic diseases and then infectious diseases, at the University of Surrey in Guildford, UK. For more than a decade, Professor McFadden has specialised in examining the genetics of microbes such as the agents of tuberculosis and meningitis. He has published more than 100 articles in scientific journals on subjects as wide-ranging as bacterial genetics, tuberculosis, idiopathic diseases and computer modelling of evolution and has edited a book on the genetics of mycobacteria.

Or maybe something was missed in this list of 68 published papers in scientific journals:

http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/pdfs/papers.pdf


Robin,

He appears to be suggesting that Dawkins is saying that selfish genes will make us behave selfishly, but of course Dawkins goes out of his way to say that this is not what he is saying. Dawkins writes a good deal on altruism, anybody even slightly acquanted with Dawkins works would know this.

We can break out the one paragraph where he mentions Dawkins by name if you want and parse it. I don't really see him saying that all. Clearly he is speaking of altruism throughout the article, but his reference to Dawkins merely says (to me) that Dawkins sees human beings as machines, products of the selfish gene. While Dawkins does speak of altruism, my understanding of his thought is that such speech is still clothed in the speech of determinism-- but I've not read the book, only reviews of it.

Back to Dr. A,

salt crystal is inanimate. A cell of my body is animate. Does he suppose that a salt crystal is "only chaos", whereas a cell of my body (which may become cancer at any moment) is "orderly right down to its DNA"?

I find it typical that when pressed with a wide-ranging concept, some would rather debate the particulars. Are you trying to convince me that the salt crystal and the individual cell in my body are not structured in radically different ways? And that this structure is not measurably more ordered in animate than non-animate objects?

The ceationist loonies keep saying "Oh, this is science, and this proves that the Evil Evil-utionists are wrong".

Has this author stated anything of this nature at all? Any close to this? Could it be that you are not even considering what he saying because it falls outside your purview?

QM does not move in mysterious ways. It moves in ways specified by exact mathematical formulae.

It "moves" if at all through probability and the presence or absence of measurement, which contrary to your statement is quite mysterious. That is radically different than the exact mathematical formulas of algebra.

QM can't --- if the theory is correct, it can only do what the theory says it does.

Or better put, the range in which QM defines that it can.

Anyone sufficiently ignorant of science to think that electromagnetism holds the atomic nucleus together is not even trying to tell the truth. What are the odds that the nutty sites she links to are going to be perfectly accurate?

We must be confusing authors again... does she link to this site? I didn't read much of the article from the OP at all, it seemed silly.

Flick

 

[stamenflicker]

Dr. A and Robin,

I found this review, his response, and a counter from the reviewer:

http://www.poco.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mjd1014/qevreva.html

http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0110/0110083.pdf

http://www.poco.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mjd1014/qevrevr.html

The more I read the more I'm interested. If mutation within bacteria is experimentally demonstrated to have quantum causes, then I fail to see why that isn't worth talking about. Especially given the requirement of measurement for the wave form collapse.

Flick

 

[Robin]

We can break out the one paragraph where he mentions Dawkins by name if you want and parse it. I don't really see him saying that all. Clearly he is speaking of altruism throughout the article, but his reference to Dawkins merely says (to me) that Dawkins sees human beings as machines, products of the selfish gene. While Dawkins does speak of altruism, my understanding of his thought is that such speech is still clothed in the speech of determinism-- but I've not read the book, only reviews of it.

From McFadden's article
If Richard is behaving entirely selfishly (programmed by his selfish genes), he should accept whatever Steven is prepared to give.

Now "selfish genes" is clearly a reference to Dawkins. McFadden is clearly setting up the straw man that selfish genes create selfishness, something that Dawkins went to great lengths to explain that he did not mean.

And there is this nonsense:

Modern evolutionary theory agrees with market economics that we are inherently selfish and unlikely to give if we don't expect to receive.

If you can find anything in modern evolutionary theory that says anything even remotely like this I will concede that the guy has credibility. But if this is just the ridiculous straw man argument that it seems then he is intellectually dishonest (given that with his credentials he should know better).

 

[Robin]

Dr. A and Robin,

I found this review, his response, and a counter from the reviewer:

http://www.poco.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mjd1014/qevreva.html

http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0110/0110083.pdf

http://www.poco.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mjd1014/qevrevr.html

The more I read the more I'm interested. If mutation within bacteria is experimentally demonstrated to have quantum causes, then I fail to see why that isn't worth talking about. Especially given the requirement of measurement for the wave form collapse.

Flick

Well it is wasted on me since it would require a complete understanding of molecular biology, quantum mechanics and work through all the examples.

I mistrust this guy for the reason given in my previous post.

But remember my original point was not that this guy's theory is loony (although I am starting to think it is) but your statement that you are glad he was out there 'pushing the envelope'. That seems to imply that nobody else is.

 

[stamenflicker]

Robin,

If you can find anything in modern evolutionary theory that says anything even remotely like this I will concede that the guy has credibility.

That's fair enough. But it isn't too awfully far from the truth is it? Maybe in the realm of individual members of a group, but in the group itself? Dawkins himself admits:

It follows from such a behaviouristic definition of altruism and selfishness that ‘calculation’, whether long-term or not, is irrelevant, as is ‘emotional nature’. I assume that an oak tree has no emotions and cannot calculate, yet I might describe an oak tree as altruistic if it grew fewer leaves than its physiological optimum, thereby sparing neighbouring saplings harmful overshadowing. A biologist would be interested in calculating the genetic and other conditions which would be necessary for such ‘altruism’ to be favoured by natural selection: for instance, it might be favoured if the saplings were close relatives of the tree. Philosophers may object that this kind of definition loses most of the spirit of what is ordinarily meant by altruism, but philosophers, of all people, know that words may be redefined in special ways for technical purposes. In effect I am saying: ‘Provided I define selfishness in a particular way an oak tree, or a gene, may legitimately be described as selfish’.

It all comes down to the definition. As far as I know oak trees do not behave this way, but animals do. Why? Because Dawkins has defined it such. I'm fine with that really.

But even Dawkin's examples of "giving" involve "receiving" something do they not? Preservation of the species, the offspring passed on as opposed to dying out. I agree with Dawkins that the gene, not the entity, comprises the outcome... and that "choice" is hardly as relevant as "destiny" at our end of the time table:

We may say, with the majority of modern specialists, that maternal care is favoured by natural selection because of its beneficial effects on the inclusive fitness of the mothers concerned. Or, we may say what is essentially the same thing in terms of the selfish gene: genes that make mothers care for their young are likely to survive in the bodies of the infants cared for; genes that make mothers neglect their infants are likely to end up in dead infant bodies; therefore the gene pool becomes full of genes that induce maternal care; this is why we see maternal care in nature.

So if that "inherently selfish" part isn't so much a reflection of choice as it is, well inherent to the system. I might argue that $1 a day feeds a poor kid in Africa... but the system of market economy says it doesn't feed me in America. So am I selfish for spending $6 on a value meal? Maybe so, but in the realm of systems, I at least have a small scapegoat.

So his quote is misleading, in that "we" don't necessarily give to get, but the system sure squeezes out what doesn't. Its a very subtle difference to me.

Flick

 

[Dr Adequate]

Does this guy claim to be a Christian or even a theist? I'll back up and look... I tend view a person's claims before checking their creditials, cause creditials don't mean jack when it comes to being able to raise a point. I would think good science would be more interested in the claims than the researcher's values. Isn't that the idea of being blind? Looking at the data for the sake of the data?

Yes. If you look, I was guessing (inaccurately) the nature of his qualifications and bias by seeing how accurate he was about science, rather than vice versa.

Umm, yes? At least be willing to discuss where he is wrong. You can't necessarily take a few sentences about Dawkins in a summary and assume he misunderstood him. He may only be pointing out the parts he thought were relevant to his discussion-- kind of like your posts from the Bible regarding the sun and the earth.

There's quotation, there's cherry-picking, and there's quotation out of context. There's a bit in the Bible which says "There is no God". It would, however, be dishonest of me to represent that as the central theological message of the Bible, because it comes in the phrase "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God".

Or maybe something was missed in this list of 68 published papers in scientific journals:

http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/pdfs/papers.pdf

Hold on... aren't we mean to be "blind" to his qualifications, and just look at what he says?

I find it typical that when pressed with a wide-ranging concept, some would rather debate the particulars.

Don't be snide. I have also discussed the broad principles of quantum mechanics. The ideas being floated are, however, incorrect in detail as well as in their broad strokes. Should I not mention this?

Are you trying to convince me that the salt crystal and the individual cell in my body are not structured in radically different ways? And that this structure is not measurably more ordered in animate than non-animate objects?

The salt crystal is more ordered but less complex, just as the drill of soldiers is more ordered and less complex than a ballet performance.

If you don't like the example of a salt crystal, consider the example of my body a moment after my death. Inanimate? Certainly? Less complex than a living virus? Not at all.

Certainly to claim that whatever is inanimate is mere "chaos", and to present this as a contrast to the high degree of "order" demonstrated by animate things, is strange.

It "moves" if at all through probability and the presence or absence of measurement, which contrary to your statement is quite mysterious. That is radically different than the exact mathematical formulas of algebra.

SCHROEDINGER'S EQUATION

QM may be "mysterious" in the sense that it's hard to get a common-sense picture of what's gong on. However, it is not mysterious either in the sense that scientists don't understand it, nor in the sense that subatomic particles can suddenly start "moving in mysterious ways".

 

[Dr Adequate]

The more I read the more I'm interested. If mutation within bacteria is experimentally demonstrated to have quantum causes, then I fail to see why that isn't worth talking about.

Because so does everything else. That was, in fact, a complete waste of an experiment. Of course mutation has quantum causes. So does the formation of a crystal. So does my hair growing. So does everything you see with the possible exception of gravity. It would be astonishing to find that mutation has anything other than quantum causes.

So this is not a particularly interesting claim except to someone who want "quantum causes" to do something special and magical to the genome, such as picking the right mutations to occur. But there's nothing in Schroedinger's equation which provides for "quantum causes" to be smart.

Especially given the requirement of measurement for the wave form collapse.

Well hold on.

(1) That is one interpretation of what's going on. I said there is no common sense picture of what's going on, but there are three or four pictures which are not common sense at all, but which still help you get the picture in your head. One of these (the one your referring to) is the Copenhagen interpretation: there's also the multiverse interpretation and Bohm's interpretation (which is fascinating --- have a look).

Supposing that any of these interpretations is true is a step too far. They're useful pictures. What's true is the equations.

(2) In the Copenhagen interpretation, "measurement" does not necessarily involve observation by a conscious agent, as so many people seem to think. Indeed, the most sensible definition for "measurement" in this context would be "something which collapses the wave".

So even if the CI could be considered true in some way, the metaphysical consequences about consciousness and so forth that people want to derive from it still wouldn't follow.

 

[stamenflicker]

Dr. A,

QM may be "mysterious" in the sense that it's hard to get a common-sense picture of what's gong on. However, it is not mysterious either in the sense that scientists don't understand it, nor in the sense that subatomic particles can suddenly start "moving in mysterious ways".

Of course I am familiar with the equation. Are you familiar with decoherence?

http://www.decoherence.de/

I would particularly point to

explains also how the Schrödinger equation of general relativity (the Wheeler-DeWitt equation) may describe the appearance of time in spite of being time-less

Decoherence is the theory of universal entanglement. Generically, it does not describe a distortion of the system by the environment, but rather a disturbance (change of state) of the environment by the system.

as something that may be of interest in the case of mutation.

Being that as it may (or may not, time will surely tell us in the case of mutation), there are facinating implications here of which I am not fit to name. Which has been my only point from the beginning. I wouldn't dismiss these implications as kooky, even though kooky they are. So the OP has some guy out there speaking of light being created before anything else out there in Genesis and that light may be proven to be a necessity for understanding the rest of matter-- well, so what? It only matters to me if it is dismissed before it gets a fair shake. Quantum biology was the source of my inquiry. There is still room to wiggle, no big deal. The OP was off the hook in left field, quantum biology may not be.

So this is not a particularly interesting claim except to someone who want "quantum causes" to do something special and magical to the genome, such as picking the right mutations to occur. But there's nothing in Schroedinger's equation which provides for "quantum causes" to be smart.

And equally, nothing there to suggest they aren't--- yet.

Flick

 

[Dr Adequate]

I would particularly point to...

...as something that may be of interest in the case of mutation.

I don't quite see the relevance.

So the OP has some guy out there speaking of light being created before anything else out there in Genesis and that light may be proven to be a necessity for understanding the rest of matter-- well, so what? It only matters to me if it is dismissed before it gets a fair shake.

The guy in the OP has been given a fair shake, and all his marbles rolled out.

Quantum biology was the source of my inquiry. There is still room to wiggle, no big deal. The OP was off the hook in left field, quantum biology may not be.

As I've pointed out, quantum theory may be very useful in some aspects of biology. But not others. The theory of evolution can be almost completely detatched from its physical substratum: we require that something, it doesn't matter what, should reproduce, it doesn't matter how, with random variations, it doesn't matter why, and is selected by some process, it doesn't matter what. This is why it's been so useful in solving mathematical and engineering problems (see our previous discussions). The physical facts about DNA barely come into it.

And equally, nothing there to suggest they aren't--- yet.

Well, yes there is. There's the physical laws themselves. By virtue of saying one precise thing, quantum theory excludes lots of other things. If it is correct, then "quantum events" per se, can't intelligently conspire to do something smart like deliberately direct the mutation of DNA or bring about abiogenesis, just as if our ideas of gravity are correct, the planets cannot suddenly get up and perform a polka. If the physical laws are not correct, then quantum theory is a crock, so why are we talking about it?

 

[kuroyume0161]

This is sort of irrelevant to the topic, but bolsters Dr. A's point about the lack of requirement to apply all scientific laws to every science.

Simply, something with which I'm very familiar, 3D computer graphics is the use of computers to recreate 3D imagery in some level of realistic form (ala "Jurassic Park", for instance). Even with the most current, leading-edge technologies, it is not required of the industry to consider photons or quanta in the production of extremely realistic 3D images or animations. No animation of organisms uses musculature, bones, internal organs, circulatory, glandular, nervous systems to effect the semblence of a real organism. Such things are practically impossible (until we get those quantum computers and memory at the limits of 64-bit addressing ranges). Instead of trying to exactly mimic reality, 3D CG uses approximations at various levels to attain enough realism in order to 'appease' the viewer while getting at the heart of the matter.

I think that the entire argument that evolution theory requires implications of electromagnetic, gravitational, relativity, quantum, and other theories is bunk! This is implying that one branch of science cannot stand without support from all others (typical religious connotations ensue). Currently, relativity and quantum theories stand alone and separated by a seemingly unbridgeable chasm. Einstein spent the entire end of his life trying to unify these. Scientists have spent the fifty years intervening doing the same. Yet!! Yet! And, yet still, these two theories hold their own against all barrages and attacks.

Think a little?

 

[stamenflicker]

Dr. A,

If it is correct, then "quantum events" per se, can't intelligently conspire to do something smart like deliberately direct the mutation of DNA or bring about abiogenesis

That is an assumption on your part even if we took only the math of a multiverse into account, but I don't feel like debating this thread much more-- in a sense you are right, until we have more data, its kind of pointless. I have enjoyed it however and appreciated all your comments.

Peace,

Flick

 

[Z]

No animation of organisms uses musculature, bones, internal organs, circulatory, glandular, nervous systems to effect the semblence of a real organism.

Just a slight note - The Incredibles used musculature and bones for a more realistic approach to animation. And from what I understand, Pixar is looking for even more powerful tools to animate things from the inside out.

But, in essence, you're right; they're not looking for nervous system or gland simulators, nor are they overly worried about simulated cellular mitosis, etc.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Just a slight note - The Incredibles used musculature and bones for a more realistic approach to animation. And from what I understand, Pixar is looking for even more powerful tools to animate things from the inside out.

Oh yes, definitely. Shrek was done with musculature and bones under the skinning as well. There are systems out there to do this level of construction to allow more realistic simulation of hard bone and muscle elasticity under the skin. There are even rudimentary AI systems (LOTR battle scenes and, of course, computer games).

As you say, they haven't gone any further. None of this requires exact modeling of biology .. or physical systems. That's my point (and I think Dr. A's to some extent). Our understanding of the universe gained through science is not a 'know it all or know nothing' approach. As in 3D CG, we create theoretical models that approximately simulate/predict what is observed. And in order to do that, we are only concerned with the phenomena involved, not every possible aspect at all levels.

 

[Robin]

That's fair enough. But it isn't too awfully far from the truth is it?

No, it is about as far from the truth as it is possible to get. I am not sure of the relevance of your first quote which is just clarifying one definition of selfishness and altruism, but the second quote demonstrates this well. A mother is not consciousness of the genetic consequences of her actions and so is behaving altruistically. So this is an example of an underlying genetic advantage creating genuine altruism. Dawkins also discusses things such as dying to save an unrelated human being for which there is no obvious genetic advantage.

But McFadden misunderstands or misrepresents - he states

Modern evolutionary theory agrees with market economics that we are inherently selfish and unlikely to give if we don't expect to receive.

which is just dumb. The mother does not care for her infant because she 'expects' to receive the genetic advantage.

So if that "inherently selfish" part isn't so much a reflection of choice as it is, well inherent to the system.

There are two points here. Firstly don't forget that a genetic advantage is no advantage to us. Secondly remember the genetic advantage only had to be around the time the mutation occurred, this environmental condition may have long passed. We could be behaving altruistically because of some genetic advantage that our distant ancestors gained and which now provides no genetic advantage at all.

So his quote is misleading, in that "we" don't necessarily give to get, but the system sure squeezes out what doesn't. Its a very subtle difference to me.

Then I suppose the debate can go no further.

The difference is between

1. I do some good action because there is some advantage I am aware of, and ...
2. I do some good action unaware even subconsciously of any advantage to myself.

That does not seem subtle to me.

 

[stamenflicker]

Robin,

1. I do some good action because there is some advantage I am aware of, and ...
2. I do some good action unaware even subconsciously of any advantage to myself.

I didn't really interpret him saying either of these, but maybe I should re-look at it. The statement in and of itself seems to be referring to the systems of evolution and market economy, not what any individual "I" chooses or to do or does subconciously. That is exactly in line with Dawkins. If there is a complaint to be issued, would at least agree that it is in McFadden seemingly giving the "system" choice as to giving and receiving?

However, part of the rest of his article does deal in individual "I's," so I'm not saying you don't have a point. From our end of the spectrum destiny and inevitability can appear as choice, when in fact it may have been just destiny. Even so, as Dawkins (sort of) admits, we still have to define alturism in the past tense-- meaning actions that have already occurred, and that does have some limitation on the theory in general, as oak trees don't tend to develop altruistically. I'm sure there is a good reason as to why?

You are correct that McFadden didn't really outline Dawkins in the best of all terminology. Had he been more clear, we wouldn't have to be here speculating on it. It's probably not the tack I would have taken in a discussion on the selfish gene-- he should have kept his dialogue in the realm of systems, not individuals.

If anything can be said, he used a popular title to launch into his own thoughts without representing that title as accurately as he could have done. Still if we took the sentence in question on its own merit, and stuck to system for system comparison, I think the difference would be subtle.

Peace,

Flick

 

[stamenflicker]

Ooopps double post...

I didn't really interpret him saying either of these, but maybe I should re-look at it. The statement in and of itself seems to be referring to the systems of evolution and market economy, not what any individual "I" chooses or to do or does subconciously. That is exactly in line with Dawkins. If there is a complaint to be issued, would we at least agree that it is in McFadden seemingly giving the "system" choice as to giving and receiving?

However, part of the rest of his article does deal in individual "I's," so I'm not saying you don't have a point. From our end of the spectrum destiny and inevitability can appear as choice, when in fact it may have been just destiny. Even so, as Dawkins (sort of) admits, we still have to define alturism in the past tense-- meaning actions that have already occurred, and that does have some limitation on the theory in general, as oak trees don't tend to develop altruistically. I'm sure there is a good reason as to why?

You are correct that McFadden didn't really outline Dawkins in the best of all terminology. Had he been more clear, we wouldn't have to be here speculating on it. It's probably not the tack I would have taken in a discussion on the selfish gene-- he should have kept his dialogue in the realm of systems, not individuals.

If anything can be said, he used a popular title to launch into his own thoughts without representing that title as accurately as he could have done. Still if we took the sentence in question on its own merit, and stuck to system for system comparison, I think the difference would be subtle.

Peace,

Flick [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[Dr Adequate]

That is an assumption on your part...

No, it's a result of knowing about science and QM.

You know what a fuss-bucket I am --- you surely don't really imagine that I just go around "assuming" things about science without proof?

But if you think about it, my assumptions should be the other way round, if I was biased. Here we have a scientist explaining how known physical laws must bring about abiogenesis. As an atheist and a cheerleader for science, surely my bias would be to say that he's right. Instead, I say that he is laughably wrong, that abiogenesis is still a complete mystery to me, and that God can fill the Gap whereas quantum mechanics can't. Spot the bias.

Every point I've made counts for supernaturalism and against naturalism. But that is not what I was thinking of. I am for good science and against trash science. That's all.

Don't tell me what I "assume" unless and until you learn to read minds.