Pope's astronomer dismisses ID and says Church was "spectacularly wrong" in its treatment of Galileo

[rossum]

Your argument here isn’t very clear. Could you try to make each step in your reasoning explicit?

Behe’s ‘knockout’ IC definition requires that all subsystems of the IC system are non-functional. The T3SS is a fuctional subsystem of the bacterial flagellum. Because it has a function then the “it cannot evolve because its subsystems have no function” argument fails. Rather than a single step form nothing to a full flagellum, there is a possible intermediate step: nothing to T3SS to flagellum. The original IC definition relies on there being no intermediate steps.

If you know Dawkins Mount Improbable analogy, Behe is looking at the high cliff, with no sloping path. The T3SS shows that we do not have a single big cliff, but there are at least two smaller cliffs to climb, with a resting point between them.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Er, right… That was exactly my point, so still, isn’t the obvious equivalent: “If it could be demonstrated that it is not true for any of the complex organs which exist that they could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, ID theory would absolutely break down”? And if it’s not good for the goose, why think it’s good for the gander? If we could never demonstrate the antecedent here (Behe), what makes you think we could demonstrate it there (Darwin)? Isn’t there a symmetry between the two cases?

I am not sure I follow you here. Darwin explicitly said what would falsify his theory, and Behe understood this and made a creditable attempt at meeting Darwin’s criteria. ID as currently constituted is very difficult to falsify because there is not why to show that any designer did not mimic evolution. Since the designers’ powers are unspecified we have no basis to say what they could or could not have done. Just because something looks as if it has evolved we cannot be sure that Loki/Trickster is not just fooling us.

You’ve got some serious category errors here. Definitions are not evolvable (unless you’re switching to a discussion of memetics - which you’re obviously not). As for a “knockout case of ID,” I think we (you, me, Miller, Behe) need to get clear about the conceptual structure of ID before you can make that claim. Miller talks very tendentiously about the flagellum as the “poster child” for ID, but if someone besmirches your poster child, that’s still just one child who happened to get stuck on the poster.

It is the ID side that is changing definitions. There are three in the ISCID Encyclopedia, Behe’s original, Dembski’s modification of Behe and Behe’s second definition in terms of process rather than final state.

The bacterial flagellum was one of the proposed IC systems in Darwin’s Black Box along with the blood clotting cascade and the adaptive immune system.

I think this notion should be intuitively obvious and was already present in Darwin’s Black Box. Maybe I should read it again. Obviously a case of putative IC must be established in the context of current knowledge of actual pathways. How can that not be obvious? And again, that is why IC claims are falsifiable, as has been demonstrated - which, N.B., does not falsify the general notion of IC.

Behe’s claims are not ID claims, they are claims about evolution. Behe has obviously read Darwin and has proposed IC to meet Darwin’s criterion for falsifying evolution. Behe’s claims about the unevolvability of “knockout IC” have been shown to be incorrect. That does not say anything one way or the other about ID.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Right, but that doesn’t address the issue here.

It shows that unfalsifiability is an issue not just for ID but for other areas of science as well.

I never said nor implied that the “we don’t know” option can be eliminated. The point of any hypothesis in science is not to exclude the possibility of other hypotheses. Again, why do you (and people like Miller) claim that it is in this case (Behe), especially when you claim that it is not in the other (Darwin)? - at least it seems you *need *to claim that that is not the point in the latter case, although you may have a hard time doing so *consistently *given your current assumptions.

I cannot see why you have a problem with the respective treatment of Behe and Darwin. Darwin constructed a theory, and developed hypotheses from that theory. His hypotheses were confirmed, Archaeopteryx was a classic example, and his theory still stands today. Behe proposed a hypothesis that certain structures could not evolve. That hypothesis was shown to be incorrect many times over, those structures could have evolved. Behe’s proposal failed while Darwin’s succeeded. Hence the difference in their treatment.

Also the example is bad because the system in question is not intrinsically functional at all. It just so happens that it can be used by an extrinsic locomotive entity to accomplish a particular change of location. That doesn’t even begin to look like an IC system unless you have described how this particular act of river-crossing is an essential biological survival function of the river-crosser.

IC is a very general concept, applicable to many situations. The bacterial flagellum is linked to an outboard motor. A mousetrap is not a biological entity at all. While it does apply to some biological subsystems it also applies to many non-biological subsystems. A lot of the work done to study IC has been done on non-biological systems, such as Lenski’s work with Avida.

If “the possible existence of such islands is not in dispute,” then the possible existence of IC (as Miller and I and quite possibly Behe, when read in context, define it) should not be in dispute. Correct?

The possible existence ot non-evolvable entities is not in dispute. However to date no such entities have been found so they are not of any real significance. If they are found then their origin can be studied. It may be that such life has evolved from a separate start on, say, Enceladus but that does not require ID; a second abiogenesis event would also be a possible explanation.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

This is true. At one point Behe assumed this stance before moving on to his current “edge of evolution” thing; you can disprove all the putative IC systems I suggest, but no worries. I’ll just go looking for more examples that don’t have known developmental pathways.

That’s a solid tactical advantage. IC as a general idea stands undefeated, unfalsifiable, but the IC proponent can throw out example after example. What about this thing? Ok, how about that? And oh, that over there? A single IDist can keep the whole of biology hopping with his proposals. And the scientists do all the work investigating and describing the plausible pathways for the feature (which, in a way, has been ID’s one good contribution to science, a series of challenges to investigate for incremental pathways).

But to falsify a particular example does not falsify the general concept. If the flagellum is shown to be reducible, there’s always something else to wonder about.

-TS

It doesn’t seem to matter that these pathways up the odds against them, just that someone can imagine a pathway. How can that ne enough for you? Oh - I forgot, it has to be. Irrational…

 

[buffalo]

Behe’s ‘knockout’ IC definition requires that all subsystems of the IC system are non-functional. The T3SS is a fuctional subsystem of the bacterial flagellum. Because it has a function then the “it cannot evolve because its subsystems have no function” argument fails. Rather than a single step form nothing to a full flagellum, there is a possible intermediate step: nothing to T3SS to flagellum. The original IC definition relies on there being no intermediate steps.

If you know Dawkins Mount Improbable analogy, Behe is looking at the high cliff, with no sloping path. The T3SS shows that we do not have a single big cliff, but there are at least two smaller cliffs to climb, with a resting point between them.

rossum

That would be the knockout definition, he is correct. However, common design by its very nature would preclude a knockout. On the other hand, that is why purpose is so important. Design always has purpose.

Getting back to the mousetrap. Take one of the components away and it cannot fulfill its purpose. A complete mousetrap needs its parts, even if borrowed from another functioning purposeful machine.

The ATP synthase motor needs its parts to spin and create energy for all living cells.

IDvolution is better suited as an explanation as it posits that life is front loaded with the information needed to fulfill its purpose.

 

[rossum]

It doesn’t seem to matter that these pathways up the odds against them, just that someone can imagine a pathway. How can that ne enough for you? Oh - I forgot, it has to be. Irrational…

Behe’s original claim was that no such pathway could exist. The existence of even one pathway obviously disproves that claim. We even have step by step pathways to IC systems so that initial hypothesis of Behe’s has been thoroughly disproved.

Behe’s latest version of IC is indeed based around probabilities, however even his own calculations show that the probabilities are not that much of a problem. 20,000 years for a population of 1 million bacteria to evolve a simple IC system is very far from being an insurmountable obstacle.

I do not trust probability calculations that do not show their working. Those that do show their working are almost invariably based on a faulty model of evolution that does not include the effects of natural selection. Behe’s calculations are far better than most and those calculations do not pose a problem for evolution.

Probability calculations that do not include the effects of natural selection are not modelling evolution and so are not of any relevance when discussing evolution.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Behe’s original claim was that no such pathway could exist. The existence of even one pathway obviously disproves that claim. We even have step by step pathways to IC systems so that initial hypothesis of Behe’s has been thoroughly disproved.

Behe’s latest version of IC is indeed based around probabilities, however even his own calculations show that the probabilities are not that much of a problem. 20,000 years for a population of 1 million bacteria to evolve a simple IC system is very far from being an insurmountable obstacle.

I do not trust probability calculations that do not show their working. Those that do show their working are almost invariably based on a faulty model of evolution that does not include the effects of natural selection. Behe’s calculations are far better than most and those calculations do not pose a problem for evolution.

Probability calculations that do not include the effects of natural selection are not modelling evolution and so are not of any relevance when discussing evolution.

rossum

Again, imagining a pathway that does loop de loops to get there doesn’t do much for the argument. A far better explanation with less twisting and turning is common components. When God brings together matter, energy and information He thinks creation. This (name removed by moderator)ut is the driver.

I agree - the probability calculations have to be shown trustworthy.

His calculations are not much of a problem. Which one? Care to share?

And factor in the new knowledge that DNA fights and corrects mutation ups them even more.

Methinks you are not all that confident. As far as odds go, God is better odds than materialistic evolution.

 

[Touchstone]

Again, imagining a pathway that does loop de loops to get there doesn’t do much for the argument.

It does. It’s decisive in dismissing any claim that a path is impossible, so far as the path is plausible.

A far better explanation with less twisting and turning is common components. When God brings together matter, energy and information He thinks creation. This (name removed by moderator)ut is the driver.

This is precisely the mode of thinking that produces “The gods must be angry and fighting” as the explanation for thunder and lightning. On this view, that is a better explanation than a shrug of ignorance for the ancients who don’t have any knowledge of electricity or sonic shock waves.

Even knowing about the physics of thunder and lightning, “the gods are fighting” is a better explanation, on your view, less twisting and turning and messing with all the details and complications of electromagnetism and waves, etc.

Methinks you are not all that confident. As far as odds go, God is better odds than materialistic evolution.

How are you establishing the odds in the “God” column, buffalo? Seriously, how do calculate the probabilities, there?

-TS

 

[rossum]

Again, imagining a pathway that does loop de loops to get there doesn’t do much for the argument.

I am not imagining pathways. We have a complete, mutation by mutation, pathway from a non-IC system to an IC system. See Line of Descent. There is another very probable pathway described in Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation. There is no need for a designer, we can show explicitly that IC systems can evolve. Even Professor Behe agrees that IC systems can evolve.

I agree - the probability calculations have to be shown trustworthy.

His calculations are not much of a problem. Which one? Care to share?

I have no problem with Behe’s calculations in Behe and Snoke (2004), which gives the 20,000 years figure.

Methinks you are not all that confident. As far as odds go, God is better odds than materialistic evolution.

I have calculated the probability of God existing as 1.8 x 10 ^ -3628942. That does not include any biological complexity. I can always recalculate to include any biological complexity. Whatever improbable value you can calculate for biological complexity, I can always show that God has a higher complexity and hence is less probable. The odds are against God.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

It does. It’s decisive in dismissing any claim that a path is impossible, so far as the path is plausible.

This is precisely the mode of thinking that produces “The gods must be angry and fighting” as the explanation for thunder and lightning. On this view, that is a better explanation than a shrug of ignorance for the ancients who don’t have any knowledge of electricity or sonic shock waves.

Even knowing about the physics of thunder and lightning, “the gods are fighting” is a better explanation, on your view, less twisting and turning and messing with all the details and complications of electromagnetism and waves, etc.

How are you establishing the odds in the “God” column, buffalo? Seriously, how do calculate the probabilities, there?

-TS

By the same thinking then God did it is also as plausible.

No - God is the macro, we observe on the micro level. We can distinguish between what we can consider natural forces. The macro (name removed by moderator)ut still comes from outside our frame. The gods fighting was a pagan attempt to explain, the same as your position, without Revelation. Not much has changed.

Well now that takes us right back to design doesn’t it. One calculates the odds based on chance or design. What threshold do you accept that something could not happen by chance, if you even have one?

 

[buffalo]

I am not imagining pathways. We have a complete, mutation by mutation, pathway from a non-IC system to an IC system. See Line of Descent. There is another very probable pathway described in Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation. There is no need for a designer, we can show explicitly that IC systems can evolve. Even Professor Behe agrees that IC systems can evolve.

I have no problem with Behe’s calculations in Behe and Snoke (2004), which gives the 20,000 years figure.

I have calculated the probability of God existing as 1.8 x 10 ^ -3628942. That does not include any biological complexity. I can always recalculate to include any biological complexity. Whatever improbable value you can calculate for biological complexity, I can always show that God has a higher complexity and hence is less probable. The odds are against God.

rossum

It is time once again to play The Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge

 

[buffalo]

I am not imagining pathways. We have a complete, mutation by mutation, pathway from a non-IC system to an IC system. See Line of Descent. There is another very probable pathway described in Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation. There is no need for a designer, we can show explicitly that IC systems can evolve. Even Professor Behe agrees that IC systems can evolve.

I have no problem with Behe’s calculations in Behe and Snoke (2004), which gives the 20,000 years figure.

I have calculated the probability of God existing as 1.8 x 10 ^ -3628942. That does not include any biological complexity. I can always recalculate to include any biological complexity. Whatever improbable value you can calculate for biological complexity, I can always show that God has a higher complexity and hence is less probable. The odds are against God.

rossum

Nature publishes paper on the edge of evolution, Part 1

Nature has published an interesting paper recently which places severe limits on Darwinian evolution. This is the first of several posts discussing it.
The manuscript, from the laboratory of Joseph Thornton at the University of Oregon, is entitled “An epistatic ratchet constrains the direction of glucocorticoid receptor evolution”. ( tinyurl.com/yeq2cy8 ) The work is interpreted by its authors within a standard Darwinian framework. Nonetheless, like the important work over the years of Michigan State’s Richard Lenski on laboratory evolution of E. coli, which has shown trillions of bacteria evolving under selection for tens of thousands of generations yielding just broken genes and minor changes, the new work demonstrates the looming brick wall which confronts unguided evolution in at least one system. And it points strongly to the conclusion that such walls are common throughout all of biology.

more…

http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/09/nature-publishes-paper-on-the-edge-of-evolution-part-1/

 

[Touchstone]

By the same thinking then God did it is also as plausible.

That doesn’t answer the question. How did you establish the odds for God’s existence that you apply, here?

No - God is the macro, we observe on the micro level. We can distinguish between what we can consider natural forces. The macro (name removed by moderator)ut still comes from outside our frame. The gods fighting was a pagan attempt to explain, the same as your position, without Revelation. Not much has changed.

Well now that takes us right back to design doesn’t it. One calculates the odds based on chance or design. What threshold do you accept that something could not happen by chance, if you even have one?

To establish probabilities for design, I’d need a handle on the capabilities and opportunities of a putative designer. If I find an arrowhead-shaped piece of flint in an archaeological site that dates back 20,000 years, found among bones of hominids and other animals, I’d connect the likelihood of that specimen being designed to the plausibility of hominids being available to fashion such a thing. But there in the dig, we have bones of hominids, and there is a connection which strengthens our confidence in the ostensible arrowhead as an arrowhead, and not a coincidentally arrowhead-like natural object.

If, on the other head, this same object was excavated from deep within a layer dated to the pre-Cambrian, having no supporting data for any living thing around it, locally, or time wise, I’d be inclined to think that the object was simply “arrowhead-similar” as a naturally formed object.

Design inferences are inextricably bound up in knowledge of the feautures, locations and capabilities of any putative designer.

-TS

 

[buffalo]

That doesn’t answer the question. How did you establish the odds for God’s existence that you apply, here?

To establish probabilities for design, I’d need a handle on the capabilities and opportunities of a putative designer. If I find an arrowhead-shaped piece of flint in an archaeological site that dates back 20,000 years, found among bones of hominids and other animals, I’d connect the likelihood of that specimen being designed to the plausibility of hominids being available to fashion such a thing. But there in the dig, we have bones of hominids, and there is a connection which strengthens our confidence in the ostensible arrowhead as an arrowhead, and not a coincidentally arrowhead-like natural object.

If, on the other head, this same object was excavated from deep within a layer dated to the pre-Cambrian, having no supporting data for any living thing around it, locally, or time wise, I’d be inclined to think that the object was simply “arrowhead-similar” as a naturally formed object.

Design inferences are inextricably bound up in knowledge of the feautures, locations and capabilities of any putative designer.

-TS

rossum and I started to play around with CSI, but he backed out. Do you want to pick up where he left off?

 

[tonyrey]

I have been thinking about that. The immense value, richness and beauty of life, including the human species, is part of an objective grand design. Being an objective concept does not keep human onlookers from messing up that design. Or, more to the truth, human onlookers can choose to ignore what the richness and beauty of life teaches.

And do - as is evident on this forum.

 

[tonyrey]

Design inferences are inextricably bound up in knowledge of the feautures, locations and capabilities of any putative designer.

The only essential criteria for Design are purposeful phenomena that cannot be explained in terms of purposeless processes…

 

[Touchstone]

The only essential criteria for Design are purposeful phenomena that cannot be explained in terms of purposeless processes…

Which is vacuous, an unknown. If you don’t know what is possible by impersonal processes, this criterion is inert, useless. If you are correct and that is the only essential criterion, that’s quite damning for ID.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

rossum and I started to play around with CSI, but he backed out. Do you want to pick up where he left off?

Sure, let’s do the math!!! Where do we start?

(maybe a new thread!)

-TS

 

[tonyrey]

Which is vacuous, an unknown. If you don’t know what is possible by impersonal processes, this criterion is inert, useless. If you are correct and that is the only essential criterion, that’s quite damning for ID.

It is a desperate ploy to imply that there is no limit to what material objects can achieve… If you believe impersonal processes are capable of creating persons you are in effect worshipping the blind Goddess…

 

[tonyrey]

The only essential criteria for Design are purposeful phenomena that cannot be explained in terms of purposeless processes…

On the contrary we know perfectly well what purpose entails…