Biological Design Argument?

[rossum]

Reproductive success presupposes goal-seeking which is absent in chemical reactions. It is an absurd and simplistic hypothesis to reduce biology to chemistry.

There is no goal-seeking in natural selection. It is purely mathematical.

Take three tribes. The Noorms reproduce at the normal rate and on average each Noorm produces one new member of the tribe each generation. The Doons reproduce at slightly below the normal rate, 1% down from the Noorms. The Beenies are slightly above the Noorms, reproducing at just 1% above their rate.

There is no goal, no purpose, just different average rates of reproduction.

Let each tribe start with 100 members. A simple spreadsheet shows what happens to the three tribes over time:

Generation  Doons   Noorms   Beenies
----------  -----   ------   -------
     0       100     100         100
     1        99     100         101
    10        90     100         110
   100        37     100         270
   500         1     100       14477
   700         0     100      105916
  1000         0     100     2095916

Did the Beenies have a “purpose” to grow so large? No, they just had 1% more babies. Natural selection did the rest. It selects the best reproducers. Even a small 1% advantage shows up over the generations.

According to you biological processes are reducible to chemical processes.

Biology is part of science and science deals with the purely material. All biological processes are reducible to the purely material by the very definition of biology.

Is spiritual development also the product of random mutation and natural selection?

No.

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is no goal-seeking in natural selection. It is purely mathematical.

Take three tribes. The Noorms reproduce at the normal rate and on average each Noorm produces one new member of the tribe each generation. The Doons reproduce at slightly below the normal rate, 1% down from the Noorms. The Beenies are slightly above the Noorms, reproducing at just 1% above their rate.

There is no goal, no purpose, just different average rates of reproduction.

Let each tribe start with 100 members. A simple spreadsheet shows what happens to the three tribes over time:

Generation  Doons   Noorms   Beenies
----------  -----   ------   -------
     0       100     100         100
     1        99     100         101
    10        90     100         110
   100        37     100         270
   500         1     100       14477
   700         0     100      105916
  1000         0     100     2095916

Did the Beenies have a “purpose” to grow so large? No, they just had 1% more babies. Natural selection did the rest. It selects the best reproducers. Even a small 1% advantage shows up over the generations.

Biology is part of science and science deals with the purely material. All biological processes are reducible to the purely material by the very definition of biology.

No.

rossum

This is all very nice, but it doesn’t show that the particular traits selected for early on have the potential for a wide array of extensive new traits arising from them. To assume that the spectrum of life existing today could have developed strictly because of natural selection is to engage in the fallacy of retrospective determinism and doesn’t establish definitively that mere chance could have hit upon extensible traits which would allow for future success along a timespan lasting for eons.

You might argue that some species did go extinct, but the problem here is that even those species, excepting catastrophic events, continued in some form where representative individuals appropriately developed new features that allowed them to survive. It seems to me that merely random changes would be far less successful at coming up with novel ways of meeting survival challenges. The success of living things seems to point at something more than random adaptations because merely random change would be far less successful at developing sufficiently resilient traits.

Berlinski’s point of comparing genetic code to the code of the operating system of a computer is a good one. Merely adding random or mutational alterations to the OS would not make it work better, but instead would bring it to a grinding halt in short measure. Ditto with random changes to genetic code. It would not be strengthened, but weakened.

What natural selection does not explain is how random genetic mutation has been so successful in originating those particular novel traits that allow life forms to be eminently capable of survival.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is no goal-seeking in natural selection. It is purely mathematical.

Take three tribes. The Noorms reproduce at the normal rate and on average each Noorm produces one new member of the tribe each generation. The Doons reproduce at slightly below the normal rate, 1% down from the Noorms. The Beenies are slightly above the Noorms, reproducing at just 1% above their rate.

There is no goal, no purpose, just different average rates of reproduction.

Let each tribe start with 100 members. A simple spreadsheet shows what happens to the three tribes over time:

Generation  Doons   Noorms   Beenies
----------  -----   ------   -------
     0       100     100         100
     1        99     100         101
    10        90     100         110
   100        37     100         270
   500         1     100       14477
   700         0     100      105916
  1000         0     100     2095916

Did the Beenies have a “purpose” to grow so large? No, they just had 1% more babies. Natural selection did the rest. It selects the best reproducers. Even a small 1% advantage shows up over the generations.

Biology is part of science and science deals with the purely material. All biological processes are reducible to the purely material by the very definition of biology.

No.

rossum

Let’s be clear that your statistics above have absolutely nothing to do with natural selection. This is simple mathematical calculation.

 

[rossum]

This is all very nice, but it doesn’t show that the particular traits selected for early on have the potential for a wide array of extensive new traits arising from them.

That has already been shown in laboratory experiments, such as the Lederberg Experiment and the Luria Delbruck experiment.

To assume that the spectrum of life existing today could have developed strictly because of natural selection

Nobody assumes that. Evolution includes a lot more than just natural selection. I’m sure you’ve heard of random mutations?

You might argue that some species did go extinct,

Better to rephrase that, most species have gone extinct. I have seen estimates as high as 99% of all species are now extinct. All estimates I have seen have been in excess of 90% of species are now extinct.

It seems to me that merely random changes would be far less successful at coming up with novel ways of meeting survival challenges.

Which is where my small spreadsheet of the three tribes comes in. The initial mutation may be neutral, deleterious or beneficial. That is just the initial mutation. Then natural selection takes over and differentially amplifies the beneficial mutation, as with the Beenies tribe. The end result is that there are a lot more copies of the beneficial mutation in the population than there are copies of the other mutations. Natural selection actually selects the beneficial mutations for amplification.

The success of living things seems to point at something more than random adaptations because merely random change would be far less successful at developing sufficiently resilient traits.

Natural selection is not random. If you do not include the non-random effects of natural selection then you are not talking about evolution.

What natural selection does not explain is how random genetic mutation has been so successful in originating those particular novel traits that allow life forms to be eminently capable of survival.

There are seven billion humans on Earth. On average, each of those humans has 150 mutations. That is a total of 1,050,000,000,000 mutations across the whole human population. Since there are three billion base pairs in the human genome then there are 1.05e12 / 3e9 mutations per base pair in the whole population. That is there are about 350 mutations of each base pair in our genome somewhere in the human population. Given those figures it is very likely that a given mutation is going to pop up somewhere sometime.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Let’s be clear that your statistics above have absolutely nothing to do with natural selection. This is simple mathematical calculation.

Lets be clear that my statistics have everything to do with natural selection. That is precisely how natural selection works. More success at reproduction means more copies of those genes in the next generation.

Here is Darwin:

If during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organisation, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometrical powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each being’s own welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occurred useful to man. But, if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection.

Source: Origin, Chapter Four

Note that Darwin talks about “geometrical powers of increase”. My simple calculation was merely illustrating the effect of exactly those “geometrical powers of increase”.

rossum

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

Lets be clear that my statistics have everything to do with natural selection. That is precisely how natural selection works. More success at reproduction means more copies of those genes in the next generation.

Here is Darwin:

If during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organisation, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometrical powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each being’s own welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occurred useful to man. But, if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection.

Source: Origin, Chapter Four

Note that Darwin talks about “geometrical powers of increase”. My simple calculation was merely illustrating the effect of exactly those “geometrical powers of increase”.

rossum

I think your use of the tribes is effective in explaining natural selection, but it does not call for the exclusion of a divine designer, does it?

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

No it does not. Natural selection is the result of reproductive success.

There are other elements, such as sexual selection.

The topic is Biological Design. Purpose is not a part of biology.

Ask a cosmologist, not a biologist. Chemicals originated in the Big Bang (mostly hydrogen) and in stellar neucleosynthesis (heavier elements). This is a topic for another thread since it is outside biology.

Primarily random mutation and natural selection, with neutral drift etc. also involved. I know you reject that explanation, but you asked for my explanation. Purpose is not a reified quality, but an emergent property. It does not have an independent existence.

rossum

It seems to me that you are doing a good job of defending the process (the question of “what”), but that the discussion is centered on the issue of purpose; that is, the questions of “who” and “why”. From my understanding of Catholicism, they do not object to evolution or natural selection (similar to Buddhism?), but they obviously do resist the idea, rightly so in my opinion, that Darwin’s theories (and their offspring) have “disproved” the existence of God.

 

[Aloysium]

A recent study found that IQ is dropping at about 1 point per decade. (Michael A. Woodley, Jan te Nijenhuis and Raegan Murphy) Various sociological, economic, medical explanations have been offered. If we look at this phenomenon from the perspective of random genetic mutaion and selection, the resulting picture looks a bit ominous.

Mankind is so far ahead of any other species in terms of itellectual capacity, that if the process by which we came to be is random, we really hit the Powerball genetic lottery number. The likelihood of this continuing however, would be as remote as having another winning ticket. Genetic random mutation should cause a decline in cognitive abilities because it would be more likely to have a change to the detriment than one that improves cognitive ability, given the already extremely high level. The other important factor is that “intelligent” couples are not reproducing at a rate that would maintain their genetic material. So, the kids are less bright than their parents as a result of random genetic changes, and those brighter than their peers, are less likely to pass on their genes. In 100,000 years, we should be back in caves.

So that could be one reason why the generation that brought us the idea of evolution, could represent the apex of human intelligence.

I don’t believe (I use this word fully aware of its meaning) in widely current scientific explanations for the emergence of man. I attribute the dumbing down of society to the decline of religion and the rise of consumerism, with the one dimensional thinking that it fosters. The gifts of the Holy Spirit include Wisdom, Understanding, Knowledge and Counsel. These are freely given, but must be accepted and fostered. They are essential for the individual and God’s church to come to God. They are useless and actually counter-productive for chasing societal ends of wealth, power, fame, and pleasure. The educational system, with its secular agenda has lost touch with the faculty of Counsel and is more interested in putting out well-oiled cogs for a gluttonous machine, than feeding people hungering for truth. Ultimately, it is this that is being reflected in the scores of these standardized tests.

We were created to fulfill a destiny given to us by God, that is why we have this ability to speak to and understand each other. The entire cosmos exists for the glory of God, and we, to come to know Him.

 

[nmgauss]

The declining IQ of humanity can be explained by resisting the processes of natural selection. Social Darwinism maintains that survival of the fittest results in improvement of members of a society. If we help people survive artificially, we are gradually stunting humanity because the less healthy people get to reproduce and produce more sick babies. If those sick babies can reproduce, they in turn produce more sick babies.

 

[rossum]

I think your use of the tribes is effective in explaining natural selection, but it does not call for the exclusion of a divine designer, does it?

Of course not. It does however leave less of a gap for the small designer, the one who twiddles with the details, that the Discovery Institute and the ID people propose.

rossum

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

The declining IQ of humanity can be explained by resisting the processes of natural selection. Social Darwinism maintains that survival of the fittest results in improvement of members of a society. If we help people survive artificially, we are gradually stunting humanity because the less healthy people get to reproduce and produce more sick babies. If those sick babies can reproduce, they in turn produce more sick babies.

How can the process be resisted? A better explanation, under this theory, seems to be that those with high IQ are less successful at reproducing.

 

[nmgauss]

How can the process be resisted? A better explanation, under this theory, seems to be that those with high IQ are less successful at reproducing.

Does this imply that people with high IQ cannot be as fruitful and multiply because of some defect in their reproductive abilities?

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

Does this imply that people with high IQ cannot be as fruitful and multiply because of some defect in their reproductive abilities?

What an odd question - I do not think the explanation I offered makes any implications with respect to “defects in reproductive abilities.”

 

[tonyrey]

Of course not. It does however leave less of a gap for the small designer, the one who twiddles with the details, that the Discovery Institute and the ID people propose.

rossum

“small” is a ludicrous description which reveals ignorance of the topic. Design encompasses the entire universe!

 

[tonyrey]

The declining IQ of humanity can be explained by resisting the processes of natural selection. Social Darwinism maintains that survival of the fittest results in improvement of members of a society. If we help people survive artificially, we are gradually stunting humanity because the less healthy people get to reproduce and produce more sick babies. If those sick babies can reproduce, they in turn produce more sick babies.

You obviously favour eugenics…

 

[nmgauss]

What an odd question - I do not think the explanation I offered makes any implications with respect to “defects in reproductive abilities.”

You said that people with high IQ are less successful at reproducing. In my thinking you probably mean that people with high IQ have smaller families, but your words do not imply that.

I agree with the latter meaning. Now, if people with low IQ have large families, the chances are higher of having a high IQ child than with small families from that same type of parent. But if we give special aid to those children with low IQ so that they in turn have large families with more low IQ children, soon the intelligence of the population declines. That appears to be happening.

We cannot force smart parents to have large families, but the Kennedy’s of Massachusetts gives us an example of the benefit to society for this to happen. Do you suppose that God influenced the Kennedy’s to have lots of smart kids?

 

[tonyrey]

It seems to me that you are doing a good job of defending the process (the question of “what”), but that the discussion is centered on the issue of purpose; that is, the questions of “who” and “why”. From my understanding of Catholicism, they do not object to evolution or natural selection (similar to Buddhism?), but they obviously do resist the idea, rightly so in my opinion, that Darwin’s theories (and their offspring) have “disproved” the existence of God.

Darwinism is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of biological development, let alone rational beings with free will.

 

[tonyrey]

Reproductive success presupposes goal-seeking which is absent in chemical reactions. It is an absurd and simplistic hypothesis to reduce biology to chemistry.

The flaw in your calculations is the assumption that life is reducible to chemical processes and living organisms are no more than machines. Do you really believe that? How do you justify that hypothesis?

According to you biological processes are reducible to chemical processes.

Biology is part of science and science deals with the purely material. All biological processes are reducible to the purely material by the very definition of biology.

An elementary logical fallacy. Even if biology is scientific it does not follow that life is scientifically explicable in every respect.

According to that argument human beings are no more than chemical machines.

Is spiritual development also the product of random mutation and natural selection?

No.

Then spiritual development and physical development have nothing in common. Yet metaphysical dualism infringes the principle of economy. It is also incoherent when the two aspects of reality are unrelated, especially if one is purposeful and the other purposeless.

 

[rossum]

The flaw in your calculations is the assumption that life is reducible to chemical processes and living organisms are no more than machines. Do you really believe that? How do you justify that hypothesis?

The biological aspect of life, which is what I am modelling, is so reducible. My calculation applies to bacteria as well as to fish. It is a very simple calculation modelling only one aspect of life.

An elementary logical fallacy.

You are perfectly free to show your revised calculation incorporating all those elements you feel I have left out. We are discussing biology, and mathematics is useful in biology.

Even if biology is scientific it does not follow that life is scientifically explicable in every respect.

I do not claim that it is. I do claim that is is explicable in some respects. You are setting up a strawman of what I have said. Biology is part of science, and science limits itself to the material. The non-material lies outside science: gandhabbas, kinnaras, devas etc.

According to that argument human beings are no more than chemical machines.

But I do not make that argument, as I have told you before. I am Buddhist, not atheist. I accept the non-material parts of human beings.

I await your revised calculations.

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is no goal-seeking in natural selection. It is purely mathematical.

Take three tribes. The Noorms reproduce at the normal rate and on average each Noorm produces one new member of the tribe each generation. The Doons reproduce at slightly below the normal rate, 1% down from the Noorms. The Beenies are slightly above the Noorms, reproducing at just 1% above their rate.

There is no goal, no purpose, just different average rates of reproduction.

Let each tribe start with 100 members. A simple spreadsheet shows what happens to the three tribes over time:

Generation  Doons   Noorms   Beenies
----------  -----   ------   -------
     0       100     100         100
     1        99     100         101
    10        90     100         110
   100        37     100         270
   500         1     100       14477
   700         0     100      105916
  1000         0     100     2095916

Did the Beenies have a “purpose” to grow so large? No, they just had 1% more babies. Natural selection did the rest. It selects the best reproducers. Even a small 1% advantage shows up over the generations.

The problem with your argument is that a trait that might be conducive to survival is not necessarily a trait that equips for the title of best reproducer. It is conceivable, for example that reproduction rates could be higher for species with less desirable survival traits. It would seem that reproductive rates are to be considered apart from survivability traits. In fact, there are existing classes and species with very high reproductive rates: fish, arthropods, molluscs, etc., that simply become fodder for other species with low reproductive rates such as mammals and birds.

It is entirely possible that species with very high reproductive rates could go extinct quickly given predation and other environmental factors, while a species with very low reproductive rates could continue for eons given the right conditions.

The problem with natural selection as a theory is that there is no way of determining before the fact which particular traits are actually those that assured survival. In fact, any such determination after the fact falls prey to retrospective determinism since so many factors are in play regarding survivability. It is entirely possible that a very positive trait given certain conditions might become deleterious with minor environmental changes or population changes in other species.

The natural selection paradigm seems to be an example of question begging where survivability is concerned. Why did a species survive? It was better equipped to. How do we know it was better equipped to? Well… because it survived. Classic question begging!