"Umm, evolution is origin agnostic. It doesn't explain how life started, just what happened once it did."
Actually, the idea of Universal Common Ancestry, which most people think of when they talk about evolution, is predicated on a specific notion of abiogenesis. Without a specific theory of abiogenesis, there is not really a reason or evidence to think that all are related, especially given the fossil record.
If by evolution, you mean simply "change", then yes, every agrees in evolution, even the 6-day creationists.
"But do they produce profit for Google? Not very many."
They don't need very many. They are already super-profitable.
"Google stock is over-priced, and there will be an adjustment when people start to scale down their expectations to realistic levels."
No question about that. However, this is not the fault of Google, but of the market. This is like RedHat. They have _always_ been a solid company. They have not always been a good stock, but that has nothing to do with their performance as a company, but with the market being stupid.
The difference is that Google does create profit-producing programs. Many of them. In addition, it seems to be a technology-oriented company, so the techies don't have to chase their tales for years at a time just because some marketing guy said so.
"Bug eyes and mammal eyes may serve the same purpose, as may bird wings and bat wings, but they're clearly not the same part."
However, mammal eyes and octopus eyes _are_ the same part. This happens over and over. Homology doesn't exist solely along evolutionary lines. Even the Pendactyl structure occurs multiple times.
And you failed to answer my question about the marsupial/placental conversion -- whole bodies of animals that are practically identical except for one feature, yet they are separated by 300 million years in evolutionary thinking.
You are assuming that the current cladistic diagrams are the only means of organizing the phyla. In fact, the cladistic organization ignores large-scale similarities in organisms simply because evolutionary they cannot be closely related. For example, look at the placental/marsupial convergence. You have entire groups of parallel organisms that only differ markedly from each other by ontogeny, dentition, and other minor features. Yet cladistics has them light-years apart because it is assumed that placentals split from the marsupials 300 million years ago.
The idea that the cladogram is the only way to organize life is a nice idea, but it simply is not true.
Multiple inheritance does in fact occur within life. Cladistics simply ignores this view, putting together a view of life based on evolution.
the maximum number of mutations (of any sort -- duplication, base-pair, etc) between man and the most recent ancestor of man and apes is 1,667
Note the parenthetical statement. Two things: (1) point mutations are by far the most common types of mutations. (2) Even with duplication, there are still more than 1,667 differences between man and ape's most recent ancestor (it should be roughly double for the differences between man and ape).
The duplication hypothesis (for duplication being the origin of novel proteins) has its own problems, because (a) it is based on the supposition that the duplicate is non-functional, which is in fact false, (b) it is based on the supposition that because the duplicate is non-functional, it can freely search the "mutation space" without being selected for a disadvantage, which has also been shown to be false, and (c) it assumes that the distance between a duplicated gene and a modified functional gene which does a different function is realistically achievable. This has also been shown to be false. Hughes has tried to come up with a theory of "subfunctionalization" to cover for this, but in fact, it requires that all functional units of a gene be present beforehand.
In what way is cladistics predictive? I was under the impression that it was wholly descriptive/interpretive. Can you point out predictions made by cladistics?
"But common ancestry (cladistics) successfully explains the relationship between thousands of features of millions upon millions of species - that's as good as science gets."
I think you are confusing explaining and predicting. In fact, there is an amusing story in Bones of Contention about this. An evolutionary teacher of his gave each student a packet of about 150 metal artifacts (screws, paperclips, etc.) and had the students arrange them in an evolutionary tree. Even though each student's arrangement varied slightly, they all agreed generally. This was supposed to be an exercise in evolutionary classification, but it really showed that any assortment of items can be arranged in an "evolutionary tree" whether or not such a tree is valid historically.
Anyway, please give an example of a prediction within cladistics.
"Well, no one can argue with that. I assert that there is one "pre-existing semantic domain" that includes all species found so far on Earth. You'll never see a UCAGT encoded lifeform evolve into one that uses a different chemical encoding."
Except semantic domains are at a higher level. In addition, there are multiple encodings, not just one:
"There's no physical mechanism that prevents new species (by any common meaning of that word, it doesn't really have a single technical definition) from forming."
I agree with you if you mean "by most technical definitions", but disagree with you if you mean "by any definition". I disagree that semantic information can arise on its own. If you look at all of the genetic algorithsm on computers, and any other relationship, you see that development of these algorithms can only proceed within a high-level set of predefined semantic meanings.
Genomes can adapt, but only to the extent to which their existing coding allows them to adapt.
"Of course, in the realm of microscopic organisms with fast reproductive cycles, speciation is seen constantly in the lab and in nature. Somehow that doesn't seem to bother creationists - "OK, I'll give you that germs and other icky stuff evolved, but man was created!" or something."
Actually it's a lot different. For example, if you take the Nylon bug, you will find that it has one of the most adaptable genomes on earth. However, it is still just as readily recognized as the same creature that was identified a hundred years ago. Is it a new species? Depends on the definition of species. Has it become a multicellular creature? No. Is it fundamentally a different creature? No. It adapts in specific ways to its environment, according to the semantics encoded in its genome.
There is a lot of latent expressibility in genomes as well. Lots of "junk DNA" has actually been seen to be latent potential that just needs to be "turned on". For example, many plants have the genes necessary for both C3 and C4 photosynthesis, but only one set has the promoters in place. This is indicative of a pre-adaptation -- both C3 and C4 in place, and whichever one is needed is switched on.
While computer codes are not totally synonymous with genetic codes, I have trouble understanding anyone who has programmed computers believing in the types of changes proposed by evolutionists being capable with the types of change mechanisms proposed. Do we program by having a group of testers test randomly changing programs, and then only keeping the good ones for later variation? Would it be possible, even given 4 billion years, for such a process to change "Hello World!" into Microsoft Word, with every intermediate program being at least viable?
While I am not able as yet to point to a mathematical proof that such would not be possible, I'm fairly sure that it truly is not possible.
"but I presume you mean the brand who is right, as opposed to the ID nuts"
I was actually separating out Darwinists from the natural genetic engineering crowd, which includes ID'ers but also includes people like Shapiro, who is a self-organizational theorist.
"My remark with respect to chance is that, for theoretical purposes, one abstracts chaotic (but largely deterministic) input as chance."
You missed the point entirely -- we are separated by a MUCH LARGER amount than population genetics can possibly account for. 1,667 is the maximum number of mutational events we _could_ be separated by according to _evolutionary_ timetables. The fact that we are separated by much more is the evidence required by the parent poster showing evolution to be wrong.
It depends on what you mean by "evolution". If by evolution you mean "change over time", then there is noone in their right mind who disagrees with you. The creationists are totally with you there -- ICR, AiG, BryanCORE, CRS, all of them would agree with you 100%.
If by evolution you mean Universal Common Ancestry, that's when you have numerous problems, both with creationists and with the evidence.
Likewise, many camps will disagree with you if you claim that genomes are capable of increasing semantic domains (whether it increases "information" depends on your definition of information, so I decided to clarify). Genomes are in fact very dynamic, but essentially are bound to change within pre-existing semantic domains.
"For driving evolution, only natural selection is necessary."
Actually, natural selection is becoming increasingly less relevant for biochemists. Please at least look at a modern views of evolution.
For traditional evolutionists, chance is in fact a driving factor of evolution. Remember, natural selection cannot in principle create anything new. The _driver_ of neo-Darwinistic evolution was in fact chance -- natural selection was merely a step-by-step filter. But modern looks at evolution as outlined above are showing that really the driving force is the organism/genome itself, which is capable of reorganizing itself in response to environmental stresses. This is a design quality.
"OK, bring on the experiments. Describe an experiment that can be used to disprove design in a given organism."
Actually, in ID, undesign is the null hypothesis. What you have to do is show statistically that undesign is untenable.
ID divides causitive action into three possibilities: necessity, chance, and agency. If you can prove that a given item is neither a product of necessity nor chance, then it must be the result of agency.
Biology is not the only use of ID. Similar methods have been used in Archaeology for decades to decide if a given artifact was pottery or a naturally occurring substance. Likewise, a similar methodology is being used in SETI to determine if a signal from space is from natural origin or from an intelligent agent.
Of course, the most telling thing about us that would lead someone to believe in an intelligent designer is DNA. Can you name any other codal system that would be natural? DNA is not a pattern like a crystal is a pattern. Instead, DNA is a codified system, where the medium of DNA is independent of the message it signifies. In fact, you have all of the components for a Shannon communication system. In what other aspect of undesigned nature do we find a codal system? Is there any? I haven't heard of another.
Actually, according to calculations done on the model by JBS Haldane, the maximum number of mutations (of any sort -- duplication, base-pair, etc) between man and the most recent ancestor of man and apes is 1,667 based on the evolutionary timetable. this link has more information, and at the bottom has a link to another article with other evidence against the hypothesis that men and apes shared a common ancestor.
"An intelligent designer would create intelligent designs, with each feature designed perfectly to fit its intended purpose."
This is assuming a perfect creation. Evolution is full of metaphysical assumptions, but pretends its not. See Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. His main point is that the biggest problem of evolution is not its metaphysics, but its denial of its metaphysics.
Anyway, let's look at some flaws in your assumptions:
1) God would make each creature perfect. In fact, God specifically said he made some creatures persue folly by design. 2) Each creature currently is as it was created. Would not a good engineer make a creature adaptable? 3) Each creatures is as perfect as was originally made. But Biblically, all creation was affected by the fall.
It sounds like your arguments are from Gould. Gould was a great writer and an excellent thinker, but he failed to see (or even possibly know about) how the fall would affect biology. Understanding the Pattern of Life has a great chapters on both biodiversity and biological imperfection. While it probably isn't enough to convince a skeptic, it would probably be useful for skeptics to at least understand the creationist perspective.
"No, "God did it" is still a very worthless assertion."
Only if you have no conception of who God is. If I say "Picasso did it", then that is a very valuable assertion. Likewise, if you say God did it, meaning the God of the Old and New Testament, then you have a distinct perspective on biology:
Understanding the Pattern of Life (note -- this is NOT a creation/evolution debate book, but a biosystematics book from a scriptural perspective).
I know of companies who scan newsgroups to find out how people are using their products. They have a news server and do big regex searches on every message that comes in to see if anybody is saying anything about them, and repost the ones mentioning their brand or brand-related items to internal newsgroups that they can pick up.
If what you said were true, we should see a sharp drop in the amount of fossils dated "just before the flood". Is there any?
Apparently there is. I haven't read the article, but if you look at the abstract of "Time, Life, and History in the Light of 15,000 Radiocarbon Dates" it says:
When the published dates are corrected for a basic scientific error in the method, they not only point to a recent creation, but they show an unmistakable world-wide disappearance of man and animals for a long period about 5,000 years ago.
Yes, but lets say that someone broke into your house, and set it on fire. Let's say that your house burned down twice as fast because you were stupid enough to have left a gas can in the middle of the attic. Because it burns down twice as fast, let's say your whole house is destroyed rather than just part of it. Even though you were stupid by leaving the gas can, the thief is responsible for the whole house, not just the part that would have burned if you weren't stupid.
Likewise, if they weren't smart enough to do regular backups, the thief still cost them that much damage.
"That's what backups are for. With proper backups, those deleted accounts could have been restored in hours."
Maybe, maybe not. However, while I agree with the other posters that the guy is not responsible for fixing the holes that are already in their software, he is responsible for whatever time/money it takes for restoration, even if it takes that much time because they are stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
"Umm, evolution is origin agnostic. It doesn't explain how life started, just what happened once it did."
Actually, the idea of Universal Common Ancestry, which most people think of when they talk about evolution, is predicated on a specific notion of abiogenesis. Without a specific theory of abiogenesis, there is not really a reason or evidence to think that all are related, especially given the fossil record.
If by evolution, you mean simply "change", then yes, every agrees in evolution, even the 6-day creationists.
"But do they produce profit for Google? Not very many."
They don't need very many. They are already super-profitable.
"Google stock is over-priced, and there will be an adjustment when people start to scale down their expectations to realistic levels."
No question about that. However, this is not the fault of Google, but of the market. This is like RedHat. They have _always_ been a solid company. They have not always been a good stock, but that has nothing to do with their performance as a company, but with the market being stupid.
The difference is that Google does create profit-producing programs. Many of them. In addition, it seems to be a technology-oriented company, so the techies don't have to chase their tales for years at a time just because some marketing guy said so.
Why not do two formats, and just make sure all of the players are dual-format?
"Bug eyes and mammal eyes may serve the same purpose, as may bird wings and bat wings, but they're clearly not the same part."
However, mammal eyes and octopus eyes _are_ the same part. This happens over and over. Homology doesn't exist solely along evolutionary lines. Even the Pendactyl structure occurs multiple times.
And you failed to answer my question about the marsupial/placental conversion -- whole bodies of animals that are practically identical except for one feature, yet they are separated by 300 million years in evolutionary thinking.
You are assuming that the current cladistic diagrams are the only means of organizing the phyla. In fact, the cladistic organization ignores large-scale similarities in organisms simply because evolutionary they cannot be closely related. For example, look at the placental/marsupial convergence. You have entire groups of parallel organisms that only differ markedly from each other by ontogeny, dentition, and other minor features. Yet cladistics has them light-years apart because it is assumed that placentals split from the marsupials 300 million years ago.
The idea that the cladogram is the only way to organize life is a nice idea, but it simply is not true.
Multiple inheritance does in fact occur within life. Cladistics simply ignores this view, putting together a view of life based on evolution.
You can in fact organize cars in a cladogram, just by assuming that certain similarities "evolved" more than once. Otherwise there would be no need for the term "convergent evolution". In fact, each instance of "convergent evolution" simply points out more data that we can't always infer ancestry from similarity.
No he was not.
Note the parenthetical statement. Two things: (1) point mutations are by far the most common types of mutations. (2) Even with duplication, there are still more than 1,667 differences between man and ape's most recent ancestor (it should be roughly double for the differences between man and ape).
The duplication hypothesis (for duplication being the origin of novel proteins) has its own problems, because (a) it is based on the supposition that the duplicate is non-functional, which is in fact false, (b) it is based on the supposition that because the duplicate is non-functional, it can freely search the "mutation space" without being selected for a disadvantage, which has also been shown to be false, and (c) it assumes that the distance between a duplicated gene and a modified functional gene which does a different function is realistically achievable. This has also been shown to be false. Hughes has tried to come up with a theory of "subfunctionalization" to cover for this, but in fact, it requires that all functional units of a gene be present beforehand.
For more information, see:
Gene duplication and the origin of novel proteins
and
Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues
In what way is cladistics predictive? I was under the impression that it was wholly descriptive/interpretive. Can you point out predictions made by cladistics?
"But common ancestry (cladistics) successfully explains the relationship between thousands of features of millions upon millions of species - that's as good as science gets."
I think you are confusing explaining and predicting. In fact, there is an amusing story in Bones of Contention about this. An evolutionary teacher of his gave each student a packet of about 150 metal artifacts (screws, paperclips, etc.) and had the students arrange them in an evolutionary tree. Even though each student's arrangement varied slightly, they all agreed generally. This was supposed to be an exercise in evolutionary classification, but it really showed that any assortment of items can be arranged in an "evolutionary tree" whether or not such a tree is valid historically.
Anyway, please give an example of a prediction within cladistics.
"Well, no one can argue with that. I assert that there is one "pre-existing semantic domain" that includes all species found so far on Earth. You'll never see a UCAGT encoded lifeform evolve into one that uses a different chemical encoding."
g c.cgi?mode=c
Except semantic domains are at a higher level. In addition, there are multiple encodings, not just one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprint
"There's no physical mechanism that prevents new species (by any common meaning of that word, it doesn't really have a single technical definition) from forming."
I agree with you if you mean "by most technical definitions", but disagree with you if you mean "by any definition". I disagree that semantic information can arise on its own. If you look at all of the genetic algorithsm on computers, and any other relationship, you see that development of these algorithms can only proceed within a high-level set of predefined semantic meanings.
Genomes can adapt, but only to the extent to which their existing coding allows them to adapt.
"Of course, in the realm of microscopic organisms with fast reproductive cycles, speciation is seen constantly in the lab and in nature. Somehow that doesn't seem to bother creationists - "OK, I'll give you that germs and other icky stuff evolved, but man was created!" or something."
Actually it's a lot different. For example, if you take the Nylon bug, you will find that it has one of the most adaptable genomes on earth. However, it is still just as readily recognized as the same creature that was identified a hundred years ago. Is it a new species? Depends on the definition of species. Has it become a multicellular creature? No. Is it fundamentally a different creature? No. It adapts in specific ways to its environment, according to the semantics encoded in its genome.
There is a lot of latent expressibility in genomes as well. Lots of "junk DNA" has actually been seen to be latent potential that just needs to be "turned on". For example, many plants have the genes necessary for both C3 and C4 photosynthesis, but only one set has the promoters in place. This is indicative of a pre-adaptation -- both C3 and C4 in place, and whichever one is needed is switched on.
While computer codes are not totally synonymous with genetic codes, I have trouble understanding anyone who has programmed computers believing in the types of changes proposed by evolutionists being capable with the types of change mechanisms proposed. Do we program by having a group of testers test randomly changing programs, and then only keeping the good ones for later variation? Would it be possible, even given 4 billion years, for such a process to change "Hello World!" into Microsoft Word, with every intermediate program being at least viable?
While I am not able as yet to point to a mathematical proof that such would not be possible, I'm fairly sure that it truly is not possible.
"Science doesn't have to provide accurate historical reconstructions to be right."
Universal Common Ancestry, which primarily separates creationists from evolutionists, is a historical reconstruction.
"but I presume you mean the brand who is right, as opposed to the ID nuts"
I was actually separating out Darwinists from the natural genetic engineering crowd, which includes ID'ers but also includes people like Shapiro, who is a self-organizational theorist.
"My remark with respect to chance is that, for theoretical purposes, one abstracts chaotic (but largely deterministic) input as chance."
And rightly so. The key point is unguided/purposeless. The question primarily orients around whether purpose is usable with science, and, if not, if science is capable of accurate historical reconstruction without it.
You missed the point entirely -- we are separated by a MUCH LARGER amount than population genetics can possibly account for. 1,667 is the maximum number of mutational events we _could_ be separated by according to _evolutionary_ timetables. The fact that we are separated by much more is the evidence required by the parent poster showing evolution to be wrong.
It depends on what you mean by "evolution". If by evolution you mean "change over time", then there is noone in their right mind who disagrees with you. The creationists are totally with you there -- ICR, AiG, BryanCORE, CRS, all of them would agree with you 100%.
If by evolution you mean Universal Common Ancestry, that's when you have numerous problems, both with creationists and with the evidence.
Likewise, many camps will disagree with you if you claim that genomes are capable of increasing semantic domains (whether it increases "information" depends on your definition of information, so I decided to clarify). Genomes are in fact very dynamic, but essentially are bound to change within pre-existing semantic domains.
"For driving evolution, only natural selection is necessary."
Actually, natural selection is becoming increasingly less relevant for biochemists. Please at least look at a modern views of evolution.
For traditional evolutionists, chance is in fact a driving factor of evolution. Remember, natural selection cannot in principle create anything new. The _driver_ of neo-Darwinistic evolution was in fact chance -- natural selection was merely a step-by-step filter. But modern looks at evolution as outlined above are showing that really the driving force is the organism/genome itself, which is capable of reorganizing itself in response to environmental stresses. This is a design quality.
"OK, bring on the experiments. Describe an experiment that can be used to disprove design in a given organism."
Actually, in ID, undesign is the null hypothesis. What you have to do is show statistically that undesign is untenable.
ID divides causitive action into three possibilities: necessity, chance, and agency. If you can prove that a given item is neither a product of necessity nor chance, then it must be the result of agency.
Biology is not the only use of ID. Similar methods have been used in Archaeology for decades to decide if a given artifact was pottery or a naturally occurring substance. Likewise, a similar methodology is being used in SETI to determine if a signal from space is from natural origin or from an intelligent agent.
Of course, the most telling thing about us that would lead someone to believe in an intelligent designer is DNA. Can you name any other codal system that would be natural? DNA is not a pattern like a crystal is a pattern. Instead, DNA is a codified system, where the medium of DNA is independent of the message it signifies. In fact, you have all of the components for a Shannon communication system. In what other aspect of undesigned nature do we find a codal system? Is there any? I haven't heard of another.
Anyway, for more about ID, see setting the facts straight on Intelligent Design, and the CI set of responses from Northwest Creation Network.
Actually, according to calculations done on the model by JBS Haldane, the maximum number of mutations (of any sort -- duplication, base-pair, etc) between man and the most recent ancestor of man and apes is 1,667 based on the evolutionary timetable. this link has more information, and at the bottom has a link to another article with other evidence against the hypothesis that men and apes shared a common ancestor.
"An intelligent designer would create intelligent designs, with each feature designed perfectly to fit its intended purpose."
This is assuming a perfect creation. Evolution is full of metaphysical assumptions, but pretends its not. See Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. His main point is that the biggest problem of evolution is not its metaphysics, but its denial of its metaphysics.
Anyway, let's look at some flaws in your assumptions:
1) God would make each creature perfect. In fact, God specifically said he made some creatures persue folly by design.
2) Each creature currently is as it was created. Would not a good engineer make a creature adaptable?
3) Each creatures is as perfect as was originally made. But Biblically, all creation was affected by the fall.
It sounds like your arguments are from Gould. Gould was a great writer and an excellent thinker, but he failed to see (or even possibly know about) how the fall would affect biology. Understanding the Pattern of Life has a great chapters on both biodiversity and biological imperfection. While it probably isn't enough to convince a skeptic, it would probably be useful for skeptics to at least understand the creationist perspective.
Most people also don't understand that both creationists and evolutionists believe in evolution, the main difference being that creationists believe in a polyphyletic tree, and that biodiversity was built-in while evolutionists think that it was not built in.
"No, "God did it" is still a very worthless assertion."
Only if you have no conception of who God is. If I say "Picasso did it", then that is a very valuable assertion. Likewise, if you say God did it, meaning the God of the Old and New Testament, then you have a distinct perspective on biology:
Understanding the Pattern of Life (note -- this is NOT a creation/evolution debate book, but a biosystematics book from a scriptural perspective).
A keyboard that can be modified -- what will they think of next?
I know of companies who scan newsgroups to find out how people are using their products. They have a news server and do big regex searches on every message that comes in to see if anybody is saying anything about them, and repost the ones mentioning their brand or brand-related items to internal newsgroups that they can pick up.
Sorry, forgot to give you the link to the abstracts.
Apparently there is. I haven't read the article, but if you look at the abstract of "Time, Life, and History in the Light of 15,000 Radiocarbon Dates" it says:
I'll see if I can dig up a copy from someone.
Yes, but lets say that someone broke into your house, and set it on fire. Let's say that your house burned down twice as fast because you were stupid enough to have left a gas can in the middle of the attic. Because it burns down twice as fast, let's say your whole house is destroyed rather than just part of it. Even though you were stupid by leaving the gas can, the thief is responsible for the whole house, not just the part that would have burned if you weren't stupid.
Likewise, if they weren't smart enough to do regular backups, the thief still cost them that much damage.
"That's what backups are for. With proper backups, those deleted accounts could have been restored in hours."
Maybe, maybe not. However, while I agree with the other posters that the guy is not responsible for fixing the holes that are already in their software, he is responsible for whatever time/money it takes for restoration, even if it takes that much time because they are stupid.