Being a Theistic evolutionist?

[LeafByNiggle]

Now you are reduced to demanding proof that anything was designed?

So when you design a sentence, how do you prove that you designed it?

Do you use a design detector? Or do you use common sense and ask me to see the design in your sentence?

I think what rossum is referring to is a methodology. Specifically, the methodology by which one just “knows” that a building was designed by an intelligent architect. If this is a scientific methodology, it should be subject to test and verification. For example, you might construct and experiment where you show test subjects a series of objects, some of which were intelligently designed, and some of which arose by an unintelligent process. Then ask the test subjects to say which were intelligently designed and which were not. Rossum perhaps suspects that the test subjects would not do so well in that experiment.

Personally I don’t think such an experiment would be easy to set up. For one thing, it would be difficult to come up with new objects that test subjects had not seen before. If you use objects they had seen before, their previous experience with that object (like a building) would bias their judgement. In the case of a building, I know that it is intelligently designed because I have heard about Frank Lloyd Wright and others. If you took a primitive man from the Australian Aborigines and showed him downtown Manhattan, he might very well think it was some sort of a natural wonder, not the work of a human architect.

Another problem with constructing such a test is that it would be hard to get everyone to agree before hand on which were the “correct” answers. Suppose one of the objects in the test is a termite mound. Some might say it was not intelligently designed because termites are not intelligent. But others might say it is intelligently designed because the design was inherent in the mind of God when he created termites. All in all, I don’t think it would be practical to experimentally validate any “intelligent design detector”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If a human being was exposed to a strong acid, he would not evolve any resistance. In the example you give, it’s obvious that some insects have built-in machinery that allows them to overcome exposure to certain chemicals. For example, drug discovery for humans is still trial and error. In some cases, the new drug will kill the target but also put the human being at serious risk for serious and life-threatening problems, so it is not approved.

Peace,
Ed

Another aspect of this issue is that adaptations seem small and incremental where they do occur. That seems to indicate a “tuning” towards maintaining a kind of “balance” in nature such that no change is overwhelming to other life forms. It seems to me that there is no mechanism in merely random mutations that could in any way limit any specific mutation to only changes that “improve a little.” Why haven’t there been massively incremental improvements such that a few species have become dominant in the environment and competition completely overwhelmed by the novel changes? The regulation or filter of natural selection seems to act negatively on what doesn’t survive, but how does it determine the nature of what does and why? Nor does RM explain the “tuning” of mutations towards maintaining the balance - that no particular species becomes an overwhelming threat to all others.

It appears to me that there is a kind of “if > then” structure built into adaptive change. If X occurs in the environment then effect Change Y.

Whereas a neoDarwinian seems compelled to explain my computer’s behaviour by insisting that it adapts to my actions in order to maintain the interface between it and I, the reality is that a great deal of preprogramming went into software code that anticipates user behaviour. It is possible that genetic code has been preprogrammed to “anticipate” and respond to specific environmental pressures and adapt to them. That would involve a measure of “design” which the neoDarwinian evolutionist is loathe to accept because of bias. It seems to me that, like any forensic pathologist, that possibility should be ruled out by good science, not by mere presumption.

It also would seem to me that investigation into what changes were actually triggered within genetic code could explain whether the change was a function of the code itself or merely a “random” one. To insist it had to be random is invoking a “science of the gaps” argument. We can’t know, so we’ll call it “random.” Genetics is advancing to the point that this “argument” will stand or fall depending upon the willingness of geneticists to test it. For the sake of “full disclosure” the “ID is not science” pretension needs to be dismissed for the fallacy that it truly is. If ID doesn’t stand as science it needs to be clearly demonstrated, not pretended, that it doesn’t.

 

[edwest2]

Another aspect of this issue is that adaptations seem small and incremental where they do occur. That seems to indicate a “tuning” towards maintaining a kind of “balance” in nature such that no change is overwhelming to other life forms. It seems to me that there is no mechanism in merely random mutations that could in any way limit any specific mutation to only changes that “improve a little.” Why haven’t there been massively incremental improvements such that a few species have become dominant in the environment and competition completely overwhelmed by the novel changes? The regulation or filter of natural selection seems to act negatively on what doesn’t survive, but how does it determine the nature of what does and why? Nor does RM explain the “tuning” of mutations towards maintaining the balance - that no particular species becomes an overwhelming threat to all others.

It appears to me that there is a kind of “if > then” structure built into adaptive change. If X occurs in the environment then effect Change Y.

Whereas a neoDarwinian seems compelled to explain my computer’s behaviour by insisting that it adapts to my actions in order to maintain the interface between it and I, the reality is that a great deal of preprogramming went into software code that anticipates user behaviour. It is possible that genetic code has been preprogrammed to “anticipate” and respond to specific environmental pressures and adapt to them. That would involve a measure of “design” which the neoDarwinian evolutionist is loathe to accept because of bias. It seems to me that, like any forensic pathologist, that possibility should be ruled out by good science, not by mere presumption.

It also would seem to me that investigation into what changes were actually triggered within genetic code could explain whether the change was a function of the code itself or merely a “random” one. To insist it had to be random is invoking a “science of the gaps” argument. We can’t know, so we’ll call it “random.” Genetics is advancing to the point that this “argument” will stand or fall depending upon the willingness of geneticists to test it. For the sake of “full disclosure” the “ID is not science” pretension needs to be dismissed for the fallacy that it truly is. If ID doesn’t stand as science it needs to be clearly demonstrated, not pretended, that it doesn’t.

I agree, but notice the automatic bias in the following article:

nature.com/news/2006/060119/full/news060116-10.html

Pre-existing resistance to natural and synthetic antibiotics? This is clear evidence that the uniformity assumption is not valid, but since the assumption is made that something random triggers a change, the implication that some other mechanism is involved is ignored in this example.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Peter_Plato]

Please read what I posted more carefully:

I am asking for evidence that your design detector actually works as advertised. A faulty detector cannot be relied on. where is your supporting evidence to show that your detector is not faulty?

rossum

Following my last two posts, it would seem that locating within the genetic code itself adaptive features that anticipate environmental stresses, in such a way that change is responsive to those stresses in a controlled way, would be at least an indicator of design. So, as far as seeking a “design detector” is concerned, the complexity of genetic code towards maintaining life forms in balance with nature as an anticipatory function built into the code would be an indicator of design by ruling out the “random” aspect relied upon by non-theist proponents of evolution.

This does not, by the way, mean that random mutations don’t occur, but that the engine driving change is located within the code itself rather than largely imposed “randomly.”

 

[rossum]

If being scientific was the goal, what scientists would be doing is trying to understand how natural selection affects the existing genetic code to consistently bring about these kinds of resistance changes. What they wouldn’t do is insist the changes MUST be random as a foregone conclusion.

In this context, the word “random” is a shorthand for “random with respect to their effect on the phenotype”. Mutations are not random, in the general sense. We know some causes of mutations: radiation, some chemicals etc. Certain areas of DNA are more susceptible to mutations than other areas due to the way large molecules are folded. The word “random” refers to the effect on the phenotype, not to the mutation itself.

It is the effect on the phenotype (if any) that allows natural selection to differentiate between different mutations.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Following my last two posts, it would seem that locating within the genetic code itself adaptive features that anticipate environmental stresses, in such a way that change is responsive to those stresses in a controlled way, would be at least an indicator of design.

It is also an indicator of random mutations occurring in the past. As long as a mutation is not actively deleterious, it may persist as part of neutral drift, and so be present in a population before the environment changes and it switches from neutral to beneficial. Both design and random mutation can explain this observation, so it cannot be used to differentiate between the two theories.

So, as far as seeking a “design detector” is concerned, the complexity of genetic code towards maintaining life forms in balance with nature as an anticipatory function built into the code would be an indicator of design by ruling out the “random” aspect relied upon by non-theist proponents of evolution.

Mere complexity is not an indicator of design. Shuffle five packs of cards together. The result of your shuffle is extremely complex, given the number of possible orderings of that many cards. If you do want to test a design detector, then you already need to know the answer before testing. To test a set of scales, you use known weights to check it. You need to test a design detector with know design and known non-design to see if it consistently gives the correct results. Only then can you point it at things whose status is unknown.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

In this context, the word “random” is a shorthand for “random with respect to their effect on the phenotype”. Mutations are not random, in the general sense. We know some causes of mutations: radiation, some chemicals etc. Certain areas of DNA are more susceptible to mutations than other areas due to the way large molecules are folded. The word “random” refers to the effect on the phenotype, not to the mutation itself.

It is the effect on the phenotype (if any) that allows natural selection to differentiate between different mutations.

rossum

Questions regarding “Mutations are not random, in the general sense.”
What is the term for the changes in the gene over time?

What is the “unit” or correct term which compares the number of “units” in a gene(?) in a species with another species, for example human and chimp. I have heard “units” being used in a description of the molecular clock.

Thank you.

 

[Peter_Plato]

In this context, the word “random” is a shorthand for “random with respect to their effect on the phenotype”. Mutations are not random, in the general sense. We know some causes of mutations: radiation, some chemicals etc. Certain areas of DNA are more susceptible to mutations than other areas due to the way large molecules are folded. The word “random” refers to the effect on the phenotype, not to the mutation itself.

It is the effect on the phenotype (if any) that allows natural selection to differentiate between different mutations.

rossum

The phenotype being the observable characteristics that arise from interactions between the genotype and the environment. So “random” really means that the explanation for the change has been traced NEITHER to the genotype nor to environmental causes (except when change is clearly the effect of radiation, exposure to chemicals, etc.)

Again, this makes my point that “random” is a placeholder for “not understood.” For the sake of clarity, natural selection acting on ‘random mutations’ essentially means natural selection acts on or is affected by either changes caused by environmental “trauma” or changes within the genotype itself. The latter could be a “designed” or integral feature of how the genotype “responds” to the environment allowing it to adapt, and thus not “random” at all.

 

[rossum]

If a human being was exposed to a strong acid, he would not evolve any resistance.

Of course not. A human being is an individual, not a population. Populations evolve, not individuals. Start with a population of humans. Expose them to strong acid which kills some, but not all of the populaiton. Let the survivors breed. Those survivors will on average be more resistant to strong acid. Continue for many generations.

That is why your doctor always tells you to finish the course of antibiotics, even if you feel better. If you kill all of the population, then none can breed. If you only kill part of the population of bacteria, then those most strongly resistant to the antibiotic will survive to breed, and spread their resistance.

In the example you give, it’s obvious that some insects have built-in machinery that allows them to overcome exposure to certain chemicals.

Correct. That is why we describe mutations as “random”. They contain all sorts of things that are not useful immediately. See the Luria–Delbrück experiment for the classic experimental demonstration of this. The ability to resist the bacteriophage appears randomly, sometimes early, sometimes late and sometimes not at all.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Questions regarding “Mutations are not random, in the general sense.”
What is the term for the changes in the gene over time?

“Evolution”. A gene can evolve.

What is the “unit” or correct term which compares the number of “units” in a gene(?) in a species with another species, for example human and chimp. I have heard “units” being used in a description of the molecular clock.

Different studies use different units. That is why you will see different percentages given for the match between human and chimpanzee genomes.

For example: AAAAAAAAAA vs AAAAAAAAAB (10 As vs 9As and a B)

If we use units of five letters we get a 50% match: AAAAA matches AAAAA and AAAAA does not match AAAAB. If we use units of two letters we get an 80% match. AA matches AA four times and AA does not match AB at the end.

Different units give different results. The units used in any particular test depend on the equipment used, the percentage of the genomes being looked at and the time and money available for the experiment.

rossum

 

[rossum]

So “random” really means that the explanation for the change has been traced NEITHER to the genotype nor to environmental causes (except when change is clearly the effect of radiation, exposure to chemicals, etc.)

So, what you are saying is that we may not know the exact cause except when we do know the cause. Correct, but hardly earth-shattering. Cosmic ray exposure can cause mutations, and given that we cannot track every cosmic ray hitting the earth’s surface, yes there will be a large number of mutations where we do not know the exact cause.

Not knowing the exact cause does not mean any more than we do not know the exact cause.

A mutation from a known cause, such as a mutagenic chemical released into the environment is still “random” because the mutation arising from the known cause is still “random with respect to its effect on the phenotype”. We cannot say that chemical X causes mutations that make you better able to resist cold while chemical Y causes mutations that give you blue skin. The effect of the mutations is random.

For the sake of clarity, natural selection acting on ‘random mutations’ essentially means natural selection acts on or is affected by either changes caused by environmental “trauma” or changes within the genotype itself.

Better to say that natural selection acts on the changes to the phenotype. Neutral changes are invisible to natural selection. Deleterious changes, and the mutations that cause them are weeded out and beneficial changes are spread through the population.

The latter could be a “designed” or integral feature of how the genotype “responds” to the environment allowing it to adapt, and thus not “random” at all.

Many things “could be”. In science they are called hypotheses. In order to be accepted any hypothesis needs to make unique predictions and have those predictions confirmed experimentally. With enough confirmation a hypothesis can make it to a theory. If the confirmation fails, then the hypothesis is rejected.

The recent CMBR measurements confirmed some hypotheses about inflation and disconfirmed others, which have now been rejected. Science is a process of knocking down hypotheses until only the most robust are left standing.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Please read what I posted more carefully:

I am asking for evidence that your design detector actually works as advertised. A faulty detector cannot be relied on. where is your supporting evidence to show that your detector is not faulty?

If I am the detector, and if others detect what I detect (that abiogenesis, because of its purposeful and complex nature, must have been designed) who are you to say that it was not designed? By what supporting evidence can you show that abiogenesis was not designed? By what supporting evidence can you show that my detection of design is faulty? By what supporting evidence can you show that abiogensis resulted from an undesigned assembly of chemicals? Aren’t you required to prove something?

Only the atheist **has to assume **that abiognesis was not designed.

Are you an atheist?

 

[grannymh]

“Evolution”. A gene can evolve.

Different studies use different units. That is why you will see different percentages given for the match between human and chimpanzee genomes.

For example: AAAAAAAAAA vs AAAAAAAAAB (10 As vs 9As and a B)

If we use units of five letters we get a 50% match: AAAAA matches AAAAA and AAAAA does not match AAAAB. If we use units of two letters we get an 80% match. AA matches AA four times and AA does not match AB at the end.

Different units give different results. The units used in any particular test depend on the equipment used, the percentage of the genomes being looked at and the time and money available for the experiment.

rossum

Thanks for the math example. I was watching a video lecture by John Hawks and he assumed the students knew math. Not this granny. Your help is appreciated.

 

[edwest2]

Of course not. A human being is an individual, not a population. Populations evolve, not individuals. Start with a population of humans. Expose them to strong acid which kills some, but not all of the populaiton. Let the survivors breed. Those survivors will on average be more resistant to strong acid. Continue for many generations.

That is why your doctor always tells you to finish the course of antibiotics, even if you feel better. If you kill all of the population, then none can breed. If you only kill part of the population of bacteria, then those most strongly resistant to the antibiotic will survive to breed, and spread their resistance.

Correct. That is why we describe mutations as “random”. They contain all sorts of things that are not useful immediately. See the Luria–Delbrück experiment for the classic experimental demonstration of this. The ability to resist the bacteriophage appears randomly, sometimes early, sometimes late and sometimes not at all.

rossum

I’m going with intelligent design. There is no way an organism, large or small, can respond so quickly, regardless of population size. The assumption is that a mutation occurred, but it seems to me that in the bulk of the cases, the organism already had the necessary machinery in place and/or the necessary trigger to activate the correct response machinery.

Take the bacteria found in Canadian dirt that were already resistant to antibiotics - some to a few, some to many. It seems to me that Canadian farmers, loggers or anyone exposed to Canadian dirt on a regular basis would be exposed to these and localized outbreaks of whatever would occur. That is not happening.

What scientists are not realizing is that mutation is not the answer in most cases. Built-in systems exist and, in the case of the bacteria example, the antibiotic resistance was already there. It’s unfortunate that this line of thinking is not accepted since it does not fit a preconceived idea.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

If I am the detector, and if others detect what I detect

Then you do not have a reliable detector. A lot of people detect water in a mirage. ID proponents look at living organisms and detect design. Evolutionary biologists look at living organisms and do not detect design.

We need independent evidence that your proposed detector works. Personal opinion is not scientific evidence.

Are you an atheist?

No, I am not an atheist. My scriptures have a lot more gods than yours. See the top right of my posts.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Take the bacteria found in Canadian dirt that were already resistant to antibiotics - some to a few, some to many.

This is exactly what evolution predicts, and has been confirmed in the lab by the Luria–Delbrück experiment. Mutations are random in their effects. Hence some bacteria are randomly resistant to many antibiotics, others are randomly resistant to a few antibiotics and some are randomly resistant to none of the antibiotics. Does ID predict multiple different designers? One designer giving lots of resistance, a different designer giving limited resistance and a third designer giving no resistance? Or does ID predict a single inconsistent designer? How will ID determine the number of different designers present?

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Of course not. A human being is an individual, not a population. Populations evolve, not individuals. Start with a population of humans. Expose them to strong acid which kills some, but not all of the populaiton. Let the survivors breed. Those survivors will on average be more resistant to strong acid. Continue for many generations.

Thank you for the very clear explanation – **Populations evolve, not individuals. **

This is the exact position of 21st century science of human evolution which directly opposes the Catholic teaching of monogenism, two sole human founders of the human species.

A Catholic wishing to be a theistic evolutionist needs to be totally aware of the base for 21st century science of human evolution (paleoanthropology) which describes humankind as descending from a series of **hominin populations **and not from two people fully-complete, matter and spirit (body and soul).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

We need independent evidence that your proposed detector works. Personal opinion is not scientific evidence.

No, I am not an atheist. My scriptures have a lot more gods than yours. See the top right of my posts.

We ned independent evidence (were you there at the time?) that abiogenesis was a random event. You can’t offer any because there is none. What I offer is the great unlikelihood that this was a random event because it sure looks designed!

Since you have said on several occasions in other threads that your gods can be safely ignored, there is only one conclusion to draw:

My God is bigger than yours!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Thank you for the very clear explanation – **Populations evolve, not individuals. **

This is the exact position of 21st century science of human evolution which directly opposes the Catholic teaching of monogenism, two sole human founders of the human species.

You keep talking about “* the exact position of 21st century science of human evolution*” as if it has supplanted the basic 20th century understanding. It has not. The 20th century understanding of evolution is still the basis. Some researchers have gone further and proposed conclusions that are in direct opposition to Catholic teaching on monogenism. But you don’t have to believe them to believe in evolution, which is not directly opposed to Catholic teaching.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Then you do not have a reliable detector. A lot of people detect water in a mirage. ID proponents look at living organisms and detect design. Evolutionary biologists look at living organisms and do not detect design.

We need independent evidence that your proposed detector works. Personal opinion is not scientific evidence.

As I pointed out before, there are serious practical problems with coming up with a reliable test for ID. It is like asking for a test to evaluate the detection of the big bang. We only have one instance of the universe to work with. If we had multiple universes, some of which began with a big bang and some of which did not, we might evaluate a big bang detector by seeing if it could correctly identify those universes in which the big bang was at the beginning. But we only have one universe in which to experiment. And it either started with a big bang, or it did not. Yet this does not stop scientists from proposing theories about the big bang. Similarly for Intelligent Design, either there is an intelligent designer of the universe or there is not. There is no way to test an ID detector. But this should not dissuade people from proposing theories about ID, and even pointing to corroborating observations as evidence.

My own personal non-scientific opinion is that the universe and everything in it was intelligently designed by God, and that He did it in such a way that it is perfectly consistent with the laws of nature that He also designed, so that no one will ever be able to prove the existence of God by pointing to inconsistencies in the laws of nature.