AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

I'm trying to wrap up my *final* paper for the semester, and I came across this paper in my local hard drive search for references...

One of our mathematical heavyweights has been attempting to finally provide a formal mathematical framework for biology. To give you an idea of how important this is, it would be like trying to describe physics without the Standard Model.

Biology is anything BUT a unified field. It spans geology, chemistry, and even psychology.

This paper is the first in a series, where we're finally getting rigorous, mathematical treatments of biology. (It's not that dense of a read.)

http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/darwin.pdf

I will be reading this paper (after I finish mine) and attempt to provide a plain-language summary of its results.

On a cursory read however, it is interesting to note that the preliminary two results here are NOT as huge as I think it would appear to ID advocates. (In fact uncommon descent was practically drooling because Chaitin cited Berlinski...)

He proves essentially an upper and a lower bound, perfect selection on the bottom, and a complete random walk (exhaustive search) on the top. I can tell you this, this is not the ammunition uncommon descent thinks it has. I said some years ago, that the difficult part for "proving" intelligent design, would be the fact that you must be able to separate what is designed from what came about randomly. If you can't do this, design claims aren't sufficient to move dust in a hurricane.

The reason this isn't powerful ammo, is that the only thing done in this paper is define what the worst case is, and what the best case is. These are important results, but they are only the first steps towards actual analyses.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5127 views

This paper is the first in a series, where we're finally getting rigorous, mathematical treatments of biology. (It's not that dense of a read.)

http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/darwin.pdf

The reason this isn't powerful ammo, is that the only thing done in this paper is define what the worst case is, and what the best case is. These are important results, but they are only the first steps towards actual analyses.

Thank you; the comments by the ID math guys are wonderful for me

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-last-a-darwinist-mathematician-tel...

and this quote from Gould is priceless, making his point that fossils are not 'snapshots' but the real story of evolution:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.â€ [[Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol.6(1), January 1980,p. 127.]

â€œAll paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between the major groups are characteristically abrupt.â€ [[Stephen Jay Gould 'The return of hopeful monsters'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-July 1977, p. 24.]

â€œThe extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps [[ . . . . ] He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record will rightly reject my whole theory.[[Cf. Origin, Ch 10, "Summary of the preceding and present Chapters," also see similar remarks in Chs 6 and 9.]

Darwinâ€™s argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never â€œseenâ€ in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwinâ€™s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of lifeâ€™s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.â€ [[Stephen Jay Gould 'Evolution's erratic pace'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI95), May 1977, p.14.] [[HT: Answers.com]

5067 views

David,

and this quote from Gould is priceless, making his point that fossils are not 'snapshots' but the real story of evolution:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.â€ [[Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol.6(1), January 1980,p. 127.]

The problem here, is that even with this quote, this doesn't actually explain what the problem is. Can't evolution have some feedback mechanism that ramps up or down according to some major need or breakthrough? (First land animals, for example.)

There's explosions on the path of life, but the "story" lays not in the fossils but in the molecular genetics that lead down those paths.

â€œAll paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between the major groups are characteristically abrupt.â€ [[Stephen Jay Gould 'The return of hopeful monsters'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-July 1977, p. 24.]

Between the *major* groups. Usually blamed on catastrophe in all but the Cambrian, if I'm not mistaken... still doesn't give enough of a lever to dislodge current thought.

â€œThe extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps [[ . . . . ] He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record will rightly reject my whole theory.[[Cf. Origin, Ch 10, "Summary of the preceding and present Chapters," also see similar remarks in Chs 6 and 9.]

Darwinâ€™s argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never â€œseenâ€ in the rocks.

How big are these geologic time slices that we're missing? If we're talking 100-200 years David, then, maybe, we can consider that something miraculous was happening. But we're not talking about that kind of time scale are we? And we're dealing with life forms that *All paleontologists agree would probably not fossilize.* You're pinning your hopes [on something you know has no answer.]

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwinâ€™s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of lifeâ€™s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.â€ [[Stephen Jay Gould 'Evolution's erratic pace'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI95), May 1977, p.14.] [[HT: Answers.com]

What were his thoughts on all this in the latter part of his career? I realize he was trying hard to revitalize a relatively stable field, but none of these quotes explain why fossils are not snapshots.

[EDITED]

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4995 views

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwinâ€™s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of lifeâ€™s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.â€ [[Stephen Jay Gould 'Evolution's erratic pace'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI95), May 1977, p.14.] [[HT: Answers.com]

What were his thoughts on all this in the latter part of his career? I realize he was trying hard to revitalize a relatively stable field, but none of these quotes explain why fossils are not snapshots.

I don't agree with your interpretation of Gould. From all I've read by him and about him, he consistently pointed to the gaps and the sudden appearance of new forms. Which is why I look at the whale development, and see no intermediaries, just new forms many thousands-plus years apart, each quite different. I'll look for references I can quote, but I've never read his last magnum opus.

4998 views

I don't agree with your interpretation of Gould. From all I've read by him and about him, he consistently pointed to the gaps and the sudden appearance of new forms. Which is why I look at the whale development, and see no intermediaries, just new forms many thousands-plus years apart, each quite different. I'll look for references I can quote, but I've never read his last magnum opus.

I've re-read Wonderful Life. I'm still of the same opinion about gould. Here is the website the quotes from gould came from. it is an ID site but they use valid sources in the literature;

http://iose-gen.blogspot.com/2010/06/origin-of-body-plan-level-biodiversity.html#gold

Here is the amazon site for his last book on the Structure of Evolution (which I have not read):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674006135?ie=UTF8&tag=thneyoreofbo-20&linkCod...

5031 views

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwinâ€™s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of lifeâ€™s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.â€ [[Stephen Jay Gould 'Evolution's erratic pace'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI95), May 1977, p.14.] [[HT: Answers.com]

What were his thoughts on all this in the latter part of his career? I realize he was trying hard to revitalize a relatively stable field, but none of these quotes explain why fossils are not snapshots.

I don't agree with your interpretation of Gould. From all I've read by him and about him, he consistently pointed to the gaps and the sudden appearance of new forms. Which is why I look at the whale development, and see no intermediaries, just new forms many thousands-plus years apart, each quite different. I'll look for references I can quote, but I've never read his last magnum opus.

Again, all the quotes you posted there don't give me a strong reason to consider that fossils aren't snapshots. We know that in a human lifetime, stress can kill us by giving cancer... the body's response activating things like p53.

Who says that one explanation of cancer in humans isn't genetic evolutionary processes gone awry? Who says that in previous portions of our history, that same machinery fired a branch of apes down the path towards the consciousness we have today, and that since the first of us became conscious, evolution (for us) has ceased to be down the path of physical changes?

Whales... I could buy your story if modern whales didn't have vestigial legs.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4993 views

Whales... I could buy your story if modern whales didn't have vestigial legs.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Of course a fossiol is a snapshot, but most commentators feel we have enough snapshots to agree that we can see patterns of evolutionary development that there is stasis, and fits and starts with large jumps after the stasis.

I don't follow that last statement. Of course whales are mammals and the legs prove that.My point is each fossil we have in development of whales is a large jump from the last form and there are no intermediates, after prodigious searching, and we may never find any because there never were any. Darwin predicted there would be. He has been shown to be wrong in his hope. Your skepticism in this area takes on the aura of a faith. Gould didn't bujy your belief.

5010 views

Whales... I could buy your story if modern whales didn't have vestigial legs.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Of course a fossiol is a snapshot, but most commentators feel we have enough snapshots to agree that we can see patterns of evolutionary development that there is stasis, and fits and starts with large jumps after the stasis.

Yet even mechanisms such as epigenetics don't appear (to me) to correspond to the kind of "fits and starts" you see in the fossil record. I agree, that the record progresses as you discuss above--with bursts of "innovation" if you will. However where I diverge is that there isn't any evidence-based validity for asserting that these changes happened in a manner inconsistent with current thought. Changes propagated by epigenetics would not appear distinctly different in a fossil record than anything else. It's something to consider, but there isn't a strong case here to displace mainstream thought on this issue. Until someone discovers a genetic mechanism that could warrant (geologically rapid) changes and can demonstrate it ex situ, there simply isn't a case beyond conjecture.

I don't follow that last statement. Of course whales are mammals and the legs prove that.My point is each fossil we have in development of whales is a large jump from the last form and there are no intermediates, after prodigious searching, and we may never find any because there never were any. Darwin predicted there would be. He has been shown to be wrong in his hope. Your skepticism in this area takes on the aura of a faith. Gould didn't bujy your belief.

"Never were any intermediates." You're poking into our ignorance and claiming knowledge where there is none. I wouldn't expect to find intermediates--David, you're asking nature to provide us with a snapshot of every form from A-Z. As if nature was ever so willing to reveal its secrets! We can only make scientific judgments based on what we've found: To me, the mechanics of DNA and heredity is the only known method for transmitting genetic information from organism A to C. To me, coupled with geological evidence, it explains everything we have seen. The explosions are unexplained. The solution will be an extension of current thought... not a replacement, I doubt even a paradigm shift.

Lack of intermediates literally means only that. The case for whales as you discuss here... how can you make that claim when we really don't know what the actual mutation rate even was for those organisms? What environmental pressures did they undergo? Another claim made ex-nihilo. Even among primates, the mapping differences based on Hemoglobin make the strongest case for a "gradualism" that I have ever seen.

I'm not saying that my mind concerning evolution is "made-up," what I'm saying is that the thinking I've heard from you and others has failed to come up with a strong and material case. However, those challenges I posed above would actually resolve the question in my mind, to your favor. (Insomuch as that there is something other than a generation 1 to generation 2 mechanism to evolution.)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4944 views

Yet even mechanisms such as epigenetics don't appear (to me) to correspond to the kind of "fits and starts" you see in the fossil record. I agree, that the record progresses as you discuss above--with bursts of "innovation" if you will.

You will need to reconsider if you read James Shapiro's book, Evolution. There are layers upon layers of controls, feedback loops, kill switches, etc.
the organisms can run their own destiny at times.

Another claim made ex-nihilo. Even among primates, the mapping differences based on Hemoglobin make the strongest case for a "gradualism" that I have ever seen.

On page 289 in Denton's book, Evolution, a Theory in Crisis, is this quote: " comparing the amino acid sequences [of hemoglobin] it is impossible to arrange them in any kind of evolutionary series". I know Denton believes in purpose as I do. See his second book. What is your reference for gradualism, especially since we see these jumps in species?

I'm not saying that my mind concerning evolution is "made-up," what I'm saying is that the thinking I've heard from you and others has failed to come up with a strong and material case. However, those challenges I posed above would actually resolve the question in my mind, to your favor. (Insomuch as that there is something other than a generation 1 to generation 2 mechanism to evolution.)

We will have to wait for more research to find out whether you or I are closer to the final story. Happy Christmas!

5000 views

Yet even mechanisms such as epigenetics don't appear (to me) to correspond to the kind of "fits and starts" you see in the fossil record. I agree, that the record progresses as you discuss above--with bursts of "innovation" if you will.

You will need to reconsider if you read James Shapiro's book, Evolution. There are layers upon layers of controls, feedback loops, kill switches, etc.
the organisms can run their own destiny at times.

And I don't see where mainstream theory is at odds with this claim. Humans are a prime example of a species who have engaged in artificial selection for longer than recorded history. We've created thousands of foodcrops and domesticated animals using nothing more than selecting for specific traits... as I said once before, once organismal intelligence comes into play you have a much more difficult time arguing that genetics is purely a crap-shoot. If we can select for traits, so can other organisms.

Another claim made ex-nihilo. Even among primates, the mapping differences based on Hemoglobin make the strongest case for a "gradualism" that I have ever seen.

On page 289 in Denton's book, Evolution, a Theory in Crisis, is this quote: " comparing the amino acid sequences [of hemoglobin] it is impossible to arrange them in any kind of evolutionary series". I know Denton believes in purpose as I do. See his second book. What is your reference for gradualism, especially since we see these jumps in species?

My reference is a genetics lab I worked on when I was still a biotech major. We created a pedigree sequence based on hemoglobin differences of 28 primates, and as would be predicted, the sequences match when fossil diversions between new-world and old-world primates began. The differences between a rhesus and us is much more drastic than a Gorilla and ourselves, or to Chimpanzees. (Which if I recall have identical hemoglobin.) I don't know another way to say it: If Denton said that he is absolutely wrong.

I'm not saying that my mind concerning evolution is "made-up," what I'm saying is that the thinking I've heard from you and others has failed to come up with a strong and material case. However, those challenges I posed above would actually resolve the question in my mind, to your favor. (Insomuch as that there is something other than a generation 1 to generation 2 mechanism to evolution.)

We will have to wait for more research to find out whether you or I are closer to the final story. Happy Christmas!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5019 views

On page 289 in Denton's book, Evolution, a Theory in Crisis, is this quote: " comparing the amino acid sequences [of hemoglobin] it is impossible to arrange them in any kind of evolutionary series". I know Denton believes in purpose as I do. See his second book. What is your reference for gradualism, especially since we see these jumps in species?

My reference is a genetics lab I worked on when I was still a biotech major. We created a pedigree sequence based on hemoglobin differences of 28 primates, and as would be predicted, the sequences match when fossil diversions between new-world and old-world primates began. The differences between a rhesus and us is much more drastic than a Gorilla and ourselves, or to Chimpanzees. (Which if I recall have identical hemoglobin.) I don't know another way to say it: If Denton said that he is absolutely wrong.

You are looking at closely related primates. You are quoting work in one genus. Denton was comparing much larger gaps in the tree in the evolutionary record.

5049 views

On page 289 in Denton's book, Evolution, a Theory in Crisis, is this quote: " comparing the amino acid sequences [of hemoglobin] it is impossible to arrange them in any kind of evolutionary series". I know Denton believes in purpose as I do. See his second book. What is your reference for gradualism, especially since we see these jumps in species?

My reference is a genetics lab I worked on when I was still a biotech major. We created a pedigree sequence based on hemoglobin differences of 28 primates, and as would be predicted, the sequences match when fossil diversions between new-world and old-world primates began. The differences between a rhesus and us is much more drastic than a Gorilla and ourselves, or to Chimpanzees. (Which if I recall have identical hemoglobin.) I don't know another way to say it: If Denton said that he is absolutely wrong.

You are looking at closely related primates. You are quoting work in one genus. Denton was comparing much larger gaps in the tree in the evolutionary record.

Rhesus monkeys are not all that closely related to humans. There is a HUGE gap between old-world and new-world primates... the hemoglobin pedigree we built backs that up.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5028 views

MATT: I'm not saying that my mind concerning evolution is "made-up," what I'm saying is that the thinking I've heard from you and others has failed to come up with a strong and material case. However, those challenges I posed above would actually resolve the question in my mind, to your favor. (Insomuch as that there is something other than a generation 1 to generation 2 mechanism to evolution.)

I find this discussion a bit confusing. I thought David was attacking gradualism, without which Darwin said his theory would fail. I canâ€™t find any proposal in Davidâ€™s posts that thereâ€™s anything other than a generation 1 to generation 2 mechanism. His divine pre-planning theory does not mean that each new species had to be created from scratch! But perhaps David would clarify this vital point himself.

MATT: Yet even mechanisms such as epigenetics don't appear (to me) to correspond to the kind of "fits and starts" you see in the fossil record. I agree, that the record progresses as you discuss above--with bursts of "innovation" if you will. However where I diverge is that there isn't any evidence-based validity for asserting that these changes happened in a manner inconsistent with current thought. Changes propagated by epigenetics would not appear distinctly different in a fossil record than anything else. It's something to consider, but there isn't a strong case here to displace mainstream thought on this issue. Until someone discovers a genetic mechanism that could warrant (geologically rapid) changes and can demonstrate it ex situ, there simply isn't a case beyond conjecture.

You keep talking of current or mainstream thought, as if there were a consensus on the issues of innovation and â€œfits and startsâ€. But nobody knows the answer, and there is no theory that provides â€œa case beyond conjectureâ€. Epigenetics MIGHT (conjecture) show that the fits and starts correspond to changes in the environment, and then apparent gaps in the fossil record would not be gaps at all if these changes resulted in innovations. This seems to me more logical than random mutations (see â€œThe Intelligent Cellâ€, following on from Lynn Margulisâ€™s brilliant insight that symbiotic combinations are as significant to evolution as competition between organisms.)

MATT: To me, the mechanics of DNA and heredity is the only known method for transmitting genetic information from organism A to C. To me, coupled with geological evidence, it explains everything we have seen. The explosions are unexplained. The solution will be an extension of current thought... not a replacement, I doubt even a paradigm shift.

Since the explosions are unexplained, all theories are conjecture. The fact that the explosions happened suggests there are flaws in Darwinâ€™s â€œgradualismâ€, and thatâ€™s why itâ€™s well worth considering epigenetics as a possible mechanism â€“ i.e drastic and rapid changes in the environment producing drastic and rapid changes in the flora and fauna. In my view, the undermining of gradualism and of the role of random mutations would be a major change to Darwinâ€™s theory and a paradigm shift, but not a replacement. Current thought cannot offer more than conjecture, so the solution is likely to be one of the current conjectures.

5033 views

dhw: I find this discussion a bit confusing. I thought David was attacking gradualism, without which Darwin said his theory would fail. I canâ€™t find any proposal in Davidâ€™s posts that thereâ€™s anything other than a generation 1 to generation 2 mechanism. His divine pre-planning theory does not mean that each new species had to be created from scratch! But perhaps David would clarify this vital point himself.

I haven't changed. My pre-planning theory involves a guidance mechanism, yet to be discovered,in DNA, which gives us the drive to complexity in evolution. My main contention remains the same: 1) bacteria are still here and thriving over a 3.5 billion year history. Why did more complexity occur? It doesn't appear to be necessary. 2) the other primates are the same over 6 million years, and except for our incursions into their habitat, they are surviving nicely. So why the amazing advance to us big-headed guys. From all evidence it wasn't necessary. And it represents punctuated equilibrium to me. Gould is very reasonable in his point of view. 3) and Natural Selection never demands these advances. It acts like the 'sorting hat' in Harry Potter.

5042 views

dhw,

Mainstream thought is, what I believe, is what you and David call gradualism. Both of you accept how genetic information flows from Generation 1 to Generation 2, and accept that key genes that contribute to (not killing) Generation 1, live on in Generation 2.

Where I think the confusion begins is that I hear "Gradualism" and then I hear you and David challenge it, when to me gradualism is exactly--Generation 1 sending information downstream into the future to Generation 2 and subsequent generations. SO the challenge to me has always had a ring of confusion to it...

The main sticking point between David and I (and possibly yourself) is the challenge that the process of normal genetic transfer is not sufficient for speciation.

Adding to the confusion is the charge by David where he claims that for example, in the case of whales, that "Gradualism cannot be the cause." What I am sure of however is that David appears to be claiming that these whales don't have a common ancestor... that the normal transfer of genetic information over time cannot be creative enough.

This is apparently where I diverge: Because we know and understand how genetic information flows, we don't really have a reason to think that explosions in the fossil record would be caused by anything other than the processes we have been studying since Crick and Watson discovered DNA. Epigenetics do not seem to me, to drastically change the equation--some genetic information will get passed on, but not from the DNA. (His discussions of how certain compounds exist in human ovum and are passed on.)

But we know that clearly--the majority of information resides in DNA and it is the primary mechanism of genetic information transmission. Epigenetics can only be really expected to either result in a permanent change to DNA or in passing forward certain small, single-function genetic operations. This is why I say that I don't see epigenetics causing a paradigm shift. It fills in gaps in our underlying understanding of genetic machinery... but it isn't sufficient to explain bursts of creativity.

As for the explosions in the fossil record--we can only make claims on what we witness. If you combine our knowledge of how genetic information is passed on, with the fossil record--there is only one reasonable conclusion--given the evidence at hand. Evolution can speed up and slow down its processes given demand.

In summary: I can't see beyond a G1-->G2 transmission of information being a key driver for observed changes in the fossil record. I identify this process as synonymous to gradualism, and therefore cannot step down the same path as David and yourself.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4980 views

Adding to the confusion is the charge by David where he claims that for example, in the case of whales, that "Gradualism cannot be the cause." What I am sure of however is that David appears to be claiming that these whales don't have a common ancestor... that the normal transfer of genetic information over time cannot be creative enough.

Of course genetic material passes from generation to generation. My observation, like Gould's, looks at the gaps in the fossil record. When you look at one whale ancestor to the next there are large changes in phenotype. Darwin's itty-bitty changes that He anticipated do not exist! This is why Gould and Eldridge came up with PE, and PE has not disappeared in the 30 or so years since their paper.

As for the explosions in the fossil record--we can only make claims on what we witness. If you combine our knowledge of how genetic information is passed on, with the fossil record--there is only one reasonable conclusion--given the evidence at hand. Evolution can speed up and slow down its processes given demand.

See the recent entry (this past week) in Sandwalk, Larry Moran's blog on the subject of piling up lots of genes in preceding geologic eras before the Cambrian Explosion. This is really on point. Why did the genes pile up well before the event. We don't know the answer, but there is something about DNA that appears to anticipate and allow evolution to speed up or slow down. What is really active is the piling up of the available new genes in advance.

In summary: I can't see beyond a G1-->G2 transmission of information being a key driver for observed changes in the fossil record. I identify this process as synonymous to gradualism, and therefore cannot step down the same path as David and yourself.

You need to look beyond your current view. The paradigm is changing.

5006 views

Adding to the confusion is the charge by David where he claims that for example, in the case of whales, that "Gradualism cannot be the cause." What I am sure of however is that David appears to be claiming that these whales don't have a common ancestor... that the normal transfer of genetic information over time cannot be creative enough.

Of course genetic material passes from generation to generation. My observation, like Gould's, looks at the gaps in the fossil record. When you look at one whale ancestor to the next there are large changes in phenotype. Darwin's itty-bitty changes that He anticipated do not exist! This is why Gould and Eldridge came up with PE, and PE has not disappeared in the 30 or so years since their paper.

What I'm trying to drill at with you here however... is not that PE is a false idea, but its that I don't understand how PE refutes the idea that evolution "speeds up and slows down on demand." I don't see how "gaps in the fossil record" dictate some phenomenal re-valuation of how we know genetic mechanisms work... I still don't understand the problem you (or Gould) is trying to solve... what is the basis for asserting that there is any real difference between evolution that "speeds up" and PE?

Further, if we agree that evolution is a demand-[driven] enterprise, than I am even more confused by the idea that epigenetics solves a problem that current thought [doesn't]...?

[EDITED]

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5017 views

Matt, Iâ€™m going to cherrypick quotes from your posts, because together they show what I think is the basis of the misunderstanding between yourself on the one hand, and David and me on the other.

MATT: The main sticking point between David and I (and possibly yourself) is the challenge that the process of normal genetic transfer is not sufficient for speciation.

Normal genetic transfer would lead to perpetuation of the species. The problem is change, not replication. Darwin attributes change to random mutations and adaptations. But thatâ€™s not the main sticking point between us.

MATT: As for the explosions in the fossil record--we can only make claims on what we witness. If you combine our knowledge of how genetic information is passed on, with the fossil record--there is only one reasonable conclusion--given the evidence at hand. Evolution can speed up and slow down its processes given demand.

â€œMATT: In summary: I can't see beyond a G1-->G2 transmission of information being a key driver for observed changes in the fossil record. I identify this process as synonymous to gradualism, and therefore cannot step down the same path as David and yourself.

And this is the source of the misunderstanding. I hate to say it, but once again we have a problem of terminology. Gradualism, as I understand it, is not the flow of genetic information from generation to generation, but the theory that (a) complex organs evolved in tiny stages rather than by single mutations (Darwin says: â€œIf it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Origin, p. 214), and (b) evolution proceeds at a relatively constant rate â€“ Dawkins talks of a â€œcontinuous and shallow slope up Mount Improbableâ€ (God Delusion, p. 124). You yourself have acknowledged that there are sudden explosions of evolutionary creativity. These may be connected to environmental changes. Gradualism does not allow for such upheavals, and so far we cannot account for the sudden proliferation of new species at certain times (and new means really new, not just old species adapting). Epigenetics MAY supply us with an explanation of the mechanisms that allow not only adaptation but also innovation in response to environmental pressures. Changes therefore do occur from G1 to G2, but what you call â€œspeeding up and slowing downâ€ is what David and I understand by punctuated equilibrium (as opposed to gradualism), i.e. periods of comparative stasis interspersed with great activity. Nobody yet knows for sure how or why this happens â€“ hence what you rightly call â€œconjecturesâ€.

To sum up, the confusion here arises because you have a different definition of gradualism from that used by David and myself. You appear to accept the theory of punctuated equilibrium (i.e. there is no â€œreal difference between evolution that â€˜speeds upâ€™ and PEâ€), and so there is no disagreement. Epigenetics is being discussed as a possible mechanism for rapid evolution. Davidâ€™s pre-planning theory is another conjecture.

5066 views

And this is the source of the misunderstanding. I hate to say it, but once again we have a problem of terminology. Gradualism, as I understand it, is not the flow of genetic information from generation to generation, but the theory that (a) complex organs evolved in tiny stages rather than by single mutations (Darwin says: â€œIf it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Origin, p. 214), and (b) evolution proceeds at a relatively constant rate â€“ Dawkins talks of a â€œcontinuous and shallow slope up Mount Improbableâ€ (God Delusion, p. 124).

Thank you for these exact quotes. I've read them, and digested them, but when I use my digested comments, instead of the exact quotes, it doesn't have the import of your presentation. Matt should surely see that the fossil research since Darwin does not show this type of gradualism. This is Gould's point. This is partially why the leaders of Neo-Darwinism are looking for a new paradigm with the Altenberg conferencce.

To sum up, the confusion here arises because you have a different definition of gradualism from that used by David and myself. You appear to accept the theory of punctuated equilibrium (i.e. there is no â€œreal difference between evolution that â€˜speeds upâ€™ and PEâ€), and so there is no disagreement. Epigenetics is being discussed as a possible mechanism for rapid evolution. Davidâ€™s pre-planning theory is another conjecture.

I again reiterate that Shapiro's book needs to be digested. Lamark is back in spades.

5025 views

To sum up, the confusion here arises because you have a different definition of gradualism from that used by David and myself. You appear to accept the theory of punctuated equilibrium (i.e. there is no â€œreal difference between evolution that â€˜speeds upâ€™ and PEâ€), and so there is no disagreement. Epigenetics is being discussed as a possible mechanism for rapid evolution. Davidâ€™s pre-planning theory is another conjecture.

Gould tends to throw gradualism out the window:

long term stasis following geologically abrupt origin of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists. [The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002), p. 752.]

. . . . The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section [[first occurrence] without obvious ancestors in the underlying beds, are stable once established and disappear higher up without leaving any descendants.â€ [p. 753.]

. . . . proclamations for the supposed â€˜truthâ€™ of gradualism â€“ asserted against every working paleontologistâ€™s knowledge of its rarity â€“ emerged largely from such a restriction of attention to exceedingly rare cases under the false belief that they alone provided a record of evolution at all! The falsification of most â€˜textbook classicsâ€™ upon restudy only accentuates the fallacy of the â€˜case studyâ€™ method and its root in prior expectation rather than objective reading of the fossil record. [[p. 773.]

If Gould is correct, and why shouldn't he be (?), Darwin's gradualism conjecture is wrong. Darwin proposed his gradualism from seeing breeders at work. Don't blame him, but the cement-headed followers who feel any attack on original Darwin is an attack on the theory of evolution. Darwin made a great step forward, but consider the knowledge base he worked from. Descent with modification is correct. It is just that modification is a local and immediate process, not species changing for the most part. See Sudden Origins by Jeffrey Schwartz, 1999. Gould is not alone.

5038 views

My thanks yet again to David, who has provided us with several quotes from Stephen Jay Gould. Apparently he â€œtends to throw gradualism out of the windowâ€. One quote seems to me particularly striking:

â€œThe great majority of species do not show an appreciable evolutionary change at all. The species appear in the section [first occurrence] without obvious ancestors in the underlying beds, are stable once established and disappear higher up without leaving any descendants.â€ (The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002), p. 753)

On the thread â€˜The Intelligent Cellâ€™ Iâ€™ve been arguing that if there are sudden changes in the environment, adaptation would have to be rapid; similarly innovations must work straight away if they are to be of any use. I also suggested that the human species may have evolved initially as a result of a sudden, localized environmental change that brought our ancestors down from the disappearing trees to start a new way of life on the plains â€“ with all the concomitant mental and physical adjustments. Iâ€™m not claiming that any of these ideas are original, but it would be interesting to know if the latter chimes in with Gouldâ€™s theories.

As for the mechanism, is there any more logical explanation than that of cells responding to changes in the environment by forming new combinations? This does away to a large extent with reliance on random mutations, it explains the gaps in the fossil records, and it also explains the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution with all its comings and goings. Whether such a mechanism could assemble itself by chance remains an unanswered and probably unanswerable question. I believe Gould himself was an agnostic. That speaks for itself.

Happy New Year to everyone, whether up in the trees or down on the savannah!

5007 views

David,

I answered part of this in a joint response to you and dhw.

I don't challenge that PE is wrong. I challenge that collecting benign changes over time coupled with selection pressure should result in rapid changes in phenotype. Like the demise of the dinosaurs and the rise of mammals in their wake. Warm-blood trumped cold-blood. Geologically, this transition was pretty rapid.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5002 views

dhw,
First, forgive me for waiting almost four days to reply. It was a combination of absorbing yours and David's words as well as personal reflection time. My wife got me a series of fantastic books for Christmas--including a direct English translation of a large extent of the ancient Buddhist Pali canon. (The only complete, surviving "book" from a language similar to the Buddha's.) I will be able to further discuss some of the differences as I see them, though soon I will post a Christmas Day writing I received from my current Zen Master.

Another I think you would enjoy surveys current (well, 10 years ago) thought about art, consciousness, and the Brain. It talks to Ramachandran as well as Rev. Rinpoche. (Current big-shot in Buddhist circles.)

Now for the post!

Nail on the head. Still... there's more discussion before there's one in the coffin.

The quotes you gave of Darwin's theory--again--aren't even discussed in the classes I had taken in college. The idea of gradualism for us, was/is a general idea that stems from the flow of genetic information.

Darwin's gradualism implies that flow. From a molecular standpoint, we don't care about *anything* that happens to an organism until the moment it generates offspring.

I agree with your assessment completely however: I'm on the same page, quibbling over a word. I just wanted to express why my view existed as it did.

David,

To me, again, epigenetics-->if it can be demonstrated that they can cause massive, inheritable phenotypical changes, it still doesn't change the fact that there is an environmental cause that leads to the effect, and as such, still doesn't leave a strong case for intense preplanning. The same effect would be created by having amassed a huge number of changes that don't manifest until the environment changes in the right way. I find the idea of cellular biochemical components "predicting the future" a pretty hard hill to climb, especially considering we've all agreed they aren't sentient.

Still, remember the classic moth experiment? A simple selection for color was all it took for an entire phenotype to flourish. Gradualism also exists in evolutionary arms races--generation by generation fights to one-up each other.

I agree with PE-->Let's make that clear. I never didn't. What I don't agree with is the assertion that there's something other than a self-guided process for the events. "Molecular Genetic Engineering" is something we did cover in class, but I will point out that it doesn't require our intervention in order to work. The proper place for discussing God in relation to the universe, is at the level of human consciousness.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5042 views

Still, remember the classic moth experiment? A simple selection for color was all it took for an entire phenotype to flourish. Gradualism also exists in evolutionary arms races--generation by generation fights to one-up each other.

Most folks think the peppered moth experiment was not properly done, and the results are wrong.

I agree with PE-->Let's make that clear. I never didn't. What I don't agree with is the assertion that there's something other than a self-guided process for the events. "Molecular Genetic Engineering" is something we did cover in class, but I will point out that it doesn't require our intervention in order to work. The proper place for discussing God in relation to the universe, is at the level of human consciousness.

You are very correct about human consciousness. It raises more questions about relationship with God than any other area.

5013 views

Still, remember the classic moth experiment? A simple selection for color was all it took for an entire phenotype to flourish. Gradualism also exists in evolutionary arms races--generation by generation fights to one-up each other.

Most folks think the peppered moth experiment was not properly done, and the results are wrong.

You should be more clear here, because this one is still used as a very "simple case" of evolution. Pigliucci treats it thoroughly in "Denying Evolution."

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4965 views

You should be more clear here, because this one is still used as a very "simple case" of evolution. Pigliucci treats it thoroughly in "Denying Evolution."

Thank you for your correction. See the Ken Miller explanation. It is an adaptation to bird predation, not a color camoflage issue. Pinning the moths to trees was not natural methodology and confused the issue.:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html

And Happy New year!

5066 views

Matt and I have now agreed on the subject of gradualism, but I would like to follow up on his post to David, because I think this is a richly rewarding discussion with a lot of fascinating potential.

MATT: To me, again, epigenetics-->if it can be demonstrated that they can cause massive, inheritable phenotypical changes, it still doesn't change the fact that there is an environmental cause that leads to the effect, and as such, still doesn't leave a strong case for intense preplanning.

I agree entirely. What intrigues me about epigenetics is the fact that if, as you say, it can be proved that they cause massive changes, this will drastically reduce the role of random mutations, and link change fairly and squarely to the impact of the environment. THAT is where chance steps in. But there is a catch in your wording â€“ namely, the word â€œintenseâ€. If pre-planning refers to a mechanism that will respond to environmental change and will therefore produce a huge variety of species, theism and atheism can follow exactly the same evolutionary scenario. We simply (???) have to decide if the mechanism was the product of design or of chance. But if pre-planning means that the process was deliberately targeted towards the production of humans (= â€œintenseâ€?), there is no choice: only a divinely inspired, conventionally religious, anthropocentric view of evolution is possible. I think this may be where your species and mine split off from Davidâ€™s!

MATT: The same effect would be created by having amassed a huge number of changes that don't manifest until the environment changes in the right way. I find the idea of cellular biochemical components "predicting the future" a pretty hard hill to climb, especially considering we've all agreed they aren't sentient.

This may be Davidâ€™s idea of pre-planning (he will tell us) â€“ that the changes are already potentially in situ, waiting for their moment. Too much for me to swallow as well, in the light of what I like to call the higgledy-piggledy history of life. But Iâ€™m not so sure now about cells and sentience â€“ hence the thread on the Intelligent Cell. I donâ€™t mean sentient/conscious in the way that we are. The various functioning combinations that make up our organs work quite independently of our control, and so in some ways they â€œsenseâ€ what they have to do. Similarly, each response to the environment, each new organ, each new species is the result of â€œintelligentâ€ combination. As Lynn Margulis pointed out, our trillions of cells were once free-living creatures â€œbefore being incorporated into the symbiotic life forms which were our distant ancestorsâ€.

MATT: The proper place for discussing God in relation to the universe, is at the level of human consciousness.

I donâ€™t see why there has to be just one proper place. I agree absolutely that consciousness is a prime subject right at the very foreground. But the more we learn about the mechanisms of life, the more complex they seem to be, and I think the evolutionary process in the context of chance vs design is an equally â€œproperâ€ approach to the existence of a possible designer and its relation to the universe.

It sounds as if your wife's choice of Christmas presents will be of benefit to us all! I'm afraid I shan't be sharing my pyjamas, office-tidier, chocolates, or other goodies with you folks, but Happy New Year all the same.

5006 views

What I'm trying to drill at with you here however... is not that PE is a false idea, but its that I don't understand how PE refutes the idea that evolution "speeds up and slows down on demand." I don't see how "gaps in the fossil record" dictate some phenomenal re-valuation of how we know genetic mechanisms work... I still don't understand the problem you (or Gould) is trying to solve... what is the basis for asserting that there is any real difference between evolution that "speeds up" and PE?

Please see dhw's response of today and my thoughts from today.

Further, if we agree that evolution is a demand-[driven] enterprise, than I am even more confused by the idea that epigenetics solves a problem that current thought [doesn't]...?

Evolution is not entirely demand-driven. Nor is it completely passive. Recent work I presented a couple days ago shows that pre-Cambrian gene development preceded the Explosion itself. The theory is that as oxygen increased with the new availability of many diverse but unactivated genes, the explosion could then occur. According to Darwin theory organisms must adapt to changes or threats to survive, and it turns out they can adapt quickly with epigenetic mechanisms, and not always when available genes are necessary. There is a lot more to genetics than old Darwin theory. I feel Matt is stuck back there.

5036 views

What I'm trying to drill at with you here however... is not that PE is a false idea, but its that I don't understand how PE refutes the idea that evolution "speeds up and slows down on demand." I don't see how "gaps in the fossil record" dictate some phenomenal re-valuation of how we know genetic mechanisms work... I still don't understand the problem you (or Gould) is trying to solve... what is the basis for asserting that there is any real difference between evolution that "speeds up" and PE?

Please see dhw's response of today and my thoughts from today.

Further, if we agree that evolution is a demand-[driven] enterprise, than I am even more confused by the idea that epigenetics solves a problem that current thought [doesn't]...?

Evolution is not entirely demand-driven. Nor is it completely passive. Recent work I presented a couple days ago shows that pre-Cambrian gene development preceded the Explosion itself. The theory is that as oxygen increased with the new availability of many diverse but unactivated genes, the explosion could then occur. According to Darwin theory organisms must adapt to changes or threats to survive, and it turns out they can adapt quickly with epigenetic mechanisms, and not always when available genes are necessary. There is a lot more to genetics than old Darwin theory. I feel Matt is stuck back there.

This still smacks of "collecting benign changes that don't manifest rapidly under some kind of pressure." New genes can be co-opted from existing genes, in fact they have to be. Unless there's a documented instance of a gene created ex-nihilo? (Please... don't say the beginning of life... ;-) )

I think... you don't realize exactly how alike we are in thought. dhw was right--my confusion was largely based upon the narrow confines of genetics that I was exposed to. Remember, that biotechnology doesn't exactly have a lot of use for Paleontology!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4973 views

MATT: This paper is the first in a series, where we're finally getting rigorous, mathematical treatments of biology. (It's not that dense of a read.)

http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/darwin.pdf

The reason this isn't powerful ammo, is that the only thing done in this paper is define what the worst case is, and what the best case is. These are important results, but they are only the first steps towards actual analyses.

DAVID: Thank you; the comments by the ID math guys are wonderful for me

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-last-a-darwinist-mathematician-tel...

Matt, Iâ€™m sure I shanâ€™t be the only correspondent who has difficulty with the maths, and your comments are extremely helpful. Perhaps you could continue to interpret each addition to the series as it develops. Good luck with your final paper!

5002 views

What I do and what it means.

The past semester of doing independent research has put me in quite a reflective mood for what it is that computer scientists actually do; undergrad touches on many concepts, but it is important to note that things really do get to a whole different level in grad school.

Computer Scienceâ€”at its coreâ€”is about taking a very complex problemâ€”and making it solvable. Thereâ€™s different ratings for solutions (we call them â€œBig-Ohsâ€) but if you can remember back far enough to high school algebra, these map to simple graph functions.

On this site I just posted, if you scroll to the very bottom, you get the useful bits that relate to what I'm talking about. When I create an algorithm, it's rated by its growth. The numbers from left to right, represent time. The numbers from bottom to top, represent how many operations the algorithm needs to perform to complete. (Roughly, we're dealing with estimates here.) The most important thing to note though is that flatter is better. (The fastest possible time is the line for "1.") This means "one operation."

Going back to Chaitin's paper, he said that previous work had demonstrated a worst-case complexity for completely random walks at exponential time. That corresponds to the line 2^n. He then introduces "Intelligent Design." He says that by being able to (by hand) select each mutation perfectly, the time complexity becomes linear. This is the line represented by just "n."

What this does is provide a boundary--evolution can be no better than "n" and no slower than 2^n. EVERYTHING in between is fair game.

It is here that I need to explain what it is that he's doing by using "Intelligent Design." In Operating Systems research, we do something called "Page Replacement." This is just a fancy way of saying "how we schedule memory swaps." What's important is a theoretical algorithm called "OPT." What OPT is, is similar to Chaitin's "Intelligent Design." With perfect knowledge of the future, you can create the optimum schedule. (Obviously impossible.)

The stunner in this paper, is that by some small tweaks... Chaitin was able to create a complete random-walk that results in fitness with n^2. That's an extremely significant feat. It's still not as good as Intelligent Design as our benchmark, but we're MUCH MUCH better off than exponential complexity.

What this does, on the theoretical level, is demolish entirely Dembski's argument for ID via information theory. (He claimed to prove that random walks were impossible.)

What this paper does for our debate:

Not a whole lot. The easy philosophical argument is that from the bottom-up we're dealing with man-made software artifacts. Even IF we prove a reasonable time-bound for a complete random-walk mutation schedule, the ID counter will be "these are intelligently designed." However, it makes the time argument they make much less poignant.

The other way: If its demonstrated that complete random walks can actually reach the same time-complexity as Intelligent Design, then there's three philosophical interpretations to be drawn:

1. God is random.

2. We cannot tell the difference between design and randomness.

3. Clearly life was intelligently designed. (Drawn from the conclusion that evolution maps to being the same complexity as ID.)

So... at least as far as Chaitin's research goes, don't let uncommondescent try and spin things into directions they simply cannot go...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5070 views

The other way: If its demonstrated that complete random walks can actually reach the same time-complexity as Intelligent Design, then there's three philosophical interpretations to be drawn:

1. God is random.

2. We cannot tell the difference between design and randomness.

3. Clearly life was intelligently designed. (Drawn from the conclusion that evolution maps to being the same complexity as ID.)

So... at least as far as Chaitin's research goes, don't let uncommondescent try and spin things into directions they simply cannot go...

1. What does God is random mean?

2. I understand.

3. Is that resultant possibility equal to the others? And why? I am so lost!

5041 views

David,

So... at least as far as Chaitin's research goes, don't let uncommondescent try and spin things into directions they simply cannot go...

1. What does God is random mean?

2. I understand.

3. Is that resultant possibility equal to the others? And why? I am so lost!

1. Sort of flippant... but not really. It means that God influences design in an imperfect, not really planned way. (Think of the mad painter option I threw out some years back...) God hides itself in randomness.

3. If we find that evolution were to somehow always follow the best-case path, then one interpretation is that clearly, we're designed. It's just as valid as the others.

The three interpretations are there just to show that in the end, there won't be any real impact on our discussions...

Which is, I think, one of Chaitin's external motives. (Why he cited Berlinski and is including the ID community here...) In the paper he expressed disappointment that he wasn't yet able to cause point-mutations alone to map with the "Intelligent Design" graph line.

If you prove mathematically that you can't tell the difference between design and chance, for any left-brainers out there, it stops being a debate. (We righties however are always a little more open.) Its impact would be as deep as Godel. As a reminder, Godel was the inspiration to convince Einstein that a "Theory of Everything" was impossible.

What parts of my post were confusing?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5003 views

If you prove mathematically that you can't tell the difference between design and chance, for any left-brainers out there, it stops being a debate. (We righties however are always a little more open.) Its impact would be as deep as Godel. As a reminder, Godel was the inspiration to convince Einstein that a "Theory of Everything" was impossible.

What parts of my post were confusing?

Folks should remember Godel as they struggle with String theory. As for confusing, anything past simple algebra gets me confused.

5074 views

If you prove mathematically that you can't tell the difference between design and chance, for any left-brainers out there, it stops being a debate. (We righties however are always a little more open.) Its impact would be as deep as Godel. As a reminder, Godel was the inspiration to convince Einstein that a "Theory of Everything" was impossible.

What parts of my post were confusing?

Folks should remember Godel as they struggle with String theory. As for confusing, anything past simple algebra gets me confused.

Please no offense: Did you look at the graph? No math needed there. Just matching a term (n^2) with its line on the chart. Ignore everything else on that site but the graph at the bottom of the page. Trust me... I went to great lengths to find something easy on the eyes! (Don't tell me I failed!)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5021 views

If you prove mathematically that you can't tell the difference between design and chance, for any left-brainers out there, it stops being a debate. >

Please no offense: Did you look at the graph? No math needed there. Just matching a term (n^2) with its line on the chart. Ignore everything else on that site but the graph at the bottom of the page.

All you have shown me is a graph with one algorithm faster than another, and another graph where they aren't,but I don't see how Chaitin has really proven anything when he has added fudge factors. I understand what his attempt is, and this is a first go at it, but I must wait to see if his approach has any future. I'm sure we all must wait. To me, logically, chance and design are diametrically opposed and probably should work at very different speeds.

5003 views

Please ignore the last incomplete entry, a few minutes ago.

If you prove mathematically that you can't tell the difference between design and chance, for any left-brainers out there, it stops being a debate. >

Please no offense: Did you look at the graph? No math needed there. Just matching a term (n^2) with its line on the chart. Ignore everything else on that site but the graph at the bottom of the page.

All you have shown me are graphs with one algorithm faster than another, and another graph where they aren't, and a final one with differing function lines. Does that n2 line means design and chance are the same? If so, I don't see how Chaitin has really proven anything when he has added fudge factors. I understand what his attempt is, and this is a first go at it, but I must wait to see if his approach has any future. I'm sure we all must wait. To me, logically, chance and design are diametrically opposed and probably should work at very different speeds.

4992 views

Please ignore the last incomplete entry, a few minutes ago.

If you prove mathematically that you can't tell the difference between design and chance, for any left-brainers out there, it stops being a debate. >

Please no offense: Did you look at the graph? No math needed there. Just matching a term (n^2) with its line on the chart. Ignore everything else on that site but the graph at the bottom of the page.

All you have shown me are graphs with one algorithm faster than another, and another graph where they aren't, and a final one with differing function lines. Does that n2 line means design and chance are the same? If so, I don't see how Chaitin has really proven anything when he has added fudge factors. I understand what his attempt is, and this is a first go at it, but I must wait to see if his approach has any future. I'm sure we all must wait. To me, logically, chance and design are diametrically opposed and probably should work at very different speeds.

No. The n^2 line is his improvement algorithm. The first attempt was the exponential line. His goal apparently seems (to me) to be to get performance of "uphill random walks" to match closely to that of design.

Remember though, his goal has little to do with Design vs. chance. Its everything to do with creating a mathematical underpinning to put biology on the same firm footing that sciences like physics have.

As for the two being diametrically opposed... I still have no clue why you would think that. If you take the entire problem space, perfect design on the bottom, completely random on the 2^n line... the growth of life can take on any shape that stays within those two curves. This means quite plainly, that life's growth can be any mixture of chance AND design, which is a case to my knowledge, neither made by an ID proponent nor explicitly rejected by an opponent.

For your case, David, you really don't want that random walk algorithm to get any better. If he can get random performance that gets close to what we observe in the fossil record, it will mean that from a mathematical perspective-->you cannot make the distinction "chance OR design." Your diametrical opposites cease to be. This then (in my view) completely halts a materialistic approach to reconcile God, of which, I consider your attempt a form of this. It reduces Intelligent Design to the assumption of naturalism: "supernatural phenomenon at best, cannot be differentiated from natural phenomenon," only with the vigor of a proof. I will be forced to stick to old Gnostic texts for any glimmer of the divine...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4982 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum