The only reason for having theories and hypotheses is to guide
experiment. They have no value on their own as truth.
The very idea of "selecting" between competing theories is
ridiculous. It brings us no closer to the truth. The way to
decide among competing theories is to test them, not decide
which is probably true based on some theoretical calculations
or by using some trick, like Occam's Razor.
After you collect all of the data, then you can draw
conclusions as to what is or is not likely. And one theory will
usually emerge as superior. Truth does not flow from the human
imagination, it flows from experiment and observation. That's
the only thing that has value. Speculation is interesting and
keeps the mind amused and helps us to design experiment, but it
serves no purpose in it's own right.
Of course, the number of possible hypotheses is infinite.
The human mind can create an unlimited number of scenarios to
explain any observed phenomenon. But if that is true, it's not
just a minor flaw in scientific reasoning. It becomes quickly
evident that all possible hypotheses can never be tested.
This may not seem to be a problem until you consider that if
this is so, then the results of *any* experiment will never be
conclusive. The scientific method becomes incapable of proving
anything, ever.
But this is not catastrophic because fortunately, science is not
in the business of proving and disproving things. The business
of science is saying what is most and least likely. In addition,
what is sometimes referred to as "scientific truth" is a very
fleeting phenomenon at best, and is inversely proportional to
investigative effort. In the past, scientific truths lasted a
long time, because very few people were looking very much.
But as time goes on, their lifespan is becoming increasingly
shorter. Science finds itself today leading mankind, not to a
single, absolute truth, but to multiple, indeterminate, relative
ones. Rational science is supposed to eliminate this uncertainty,
but it does not. In fact, it contributes to the chaos. Look at
what we deal with on a daily basis. Studies of various kinds are
reported every day with wildly varying claims. This is good for
you today, but it was bad for you yesterday. Substance after
substance is demonized by alleged "scientific studies" that tell
us things that we know are not true. Sugar is evil, salt will
kill you, eggs will give you a heart attack, fat is poison,
blah, blah, blah. Science is not making things clearer its making
people crazy. So what happens?
They look for an anchor, something that doesn't ever change,
that is constant and supportive. So they turn to God and religion.
It's inevitable. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.
enigma 1: something that baffles understanding and cannot be explained; 2: One that is puzzling, ambiguous, or inexplicable. 3: A dark, obscure, or inexplicable saying; a riddle; a statement, the hidden meaning of which is to be discovered or guessed.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Facilitated Variation
For years I have been arguing that the neo-darwinian view of evolution, the slow accumulation of beneficial variations over time, has never had any empirical support. I have argued that science has failed produce any empirical evidence, either observational or experimental that supports a nexus between the trivial effects of mutation and natural selection and the emergence of highly organized structures, processes and systems.
I'm glad that people are beginning to notice this glaring defect.
"In the 150 years since Darwin, the field of evolutionary biology has left a glaring gap in understanding how animals developed their astounding variety and complexity. The standard answer has been that small genetic mutations accumulate over time to produce wondrous innovations such as eyes and wings. Drawing on cutting-edge research across the spectrum of modern biology, Marc Kirschner and John Gerhart demonstrate how this stock answer is woefully inadequate."
http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300108656
Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart, The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma (Yale University Press, $30).*
(*just so there is no misunderstanding, these guys are opposed to intelligent design and have the misguided confidence that this new "patch" will somehow mitigate the growing belief that some sort of intelligent input is an absolute requirement for evolution.)
Now, just like Punctuated Equilibrium was proposed to explain the gaps in the fossil record, so a new "theory" has emerged to attempt to explain this glaring dilemma.
"The key is what they call “facilitated variation.” By this they mean that an organism does not merely tolerate environmental perturbations or developmental accidents, but in fact adjusts to the disturbances and incorporates them into its physiology or development. This buffering facilitates variation in traits by channeling environmental or genetic irregularities into integrated pathways of response. Furthermore, random inputs in the form of environmental perturbations or genetic mutations do not produce random outputs, because the outputs are shaped by the organism’s adaptive responses. Although genetic mutations may be random in their effects on the DNA sequence of an organism, facilitated variation implies that they may be far from random in how they affect the development of the organism. Facilitated variation therefore views the organism itself as playing a central part in determining how environmental and genetic variation is expressed
http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/110512.html
"...random inputs in the form of environmental perturbations or genetic mutations do not produce random outputs, because the outputs are shaped by the organism’s adaptive responses."
That sounds an awful lot like "adaptive evolution", which sounds an awful lot like "directed evolution" (Barry Hall, are you listening? You were RIGHT!)
My, my, my....the organisms are responding to their environment, not just tolerating it? Now let me see, where have I heard THAT before?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B1553205C
I'm glad that people are beginning to notice this glaring defect.
"In the 150 years since Darwin, the field of evolutionary biology has left a glaring gap in understanding how animals developed their astounding variety and complexity. The standard answer has been that small genetic mutations accumulate over time to produce wondrous innovations such as eyes and wings. Drawing on cutting-edge research across the spectrum of modern biology, Marc Kirschner and John Gerhart demonstrate how this stock answer is woefully inadequate."
http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300108656
Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart, The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma (Yale University Press, $30).*
(*just so there is no misunderstanding, these guys are opposed to intelligent design and have the misguided confidence that this new "patch" will somehow mitigate the growing belief that some sort of intelligent input is an absolute requirement for evolution.)
Now, just like Punctuated Equilibrium was proposed to explain the gaps in the fossil record, so a new "theory" has emerged to attempt to explain this glaring dilemma.
"The key is what they call “facilitated variation.” By this they mean that an organism does not merely tolerate environmental perturbations or developmental accidents, but in fact adjusts to the disturbances and incorporates them into its physiology or development. This buffering facilitates variation in traits by channeling environmental or genetic irregularities into integrated pathways of response. Furthermore, random inputs in the form of environmental perturbations or genetic mutations do not produce random outputs, because the outputs are shaped by the organism’s adaptive responses. Although genetic mutations may be random in their effects on the DNA sequence of an organism, facilitated variation implies that they may be far from random in how they affect the development of the organism. Facilitated variation therefore views the organism itself as playing a central part in determining how environmental and genetic variation is expressed
http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/110512.html
"...random inputs in the form of environmental perturbations or genetic mutations do not produce random outputs, because the outputs are shaped by the organism’s adaptive responses."
That sounds an awful lot like "adaptive evolution", which sounds an awful lot like "directed evolution" (Barry Hall, are you listening? You were RIGHT!)
My, my, my....the organisms are responding to their environment, not just tolerating it? Now let me see, where have I heard THAT before?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B1553205C
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Harold Pinter's Nobel Lecture
Some exerpts from Harold Pinter's Nobel Lecture.
Read the whole lecture HERE.
"Political language, as used by politicians, does not venture into any of this territory since the majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed."
"I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a winner. Listen to all American presidents on television say the words, 'the American people', as in the sentence, 'I say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of the American people and I ask the American people to trust their president in the action he is about to take on behalf of the American people.'"
"The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to their graves in the dark. Funerals are unobtrusive, out of harm's way. The mutilated rot in their beds, some for the rest of their lives. So the dead and the mutilated both rot, in different kinds of graves."
"I know that President Bush has many extremely competent speech writers but I would like to volunteer for the job myself. I propose the following short address which he can make on television to the nation. I see him grave, hair carefully combed, serious, winning, sincere, often beguiling, sometimes employing a wry smile, curiously attractive, a man's man.
'God is good. God is great. God is good. My God is good. Bin Laden's God is bad. His is a bad God. Saddam's God was bad, except he didn't have one. He was a barbarian. We are not barbarians. We don't chop people's heads off. We believe in freedom. So does God. I am not a barbarian. I am the democratically elected leader of a freedom-loving democracy. We are a compassionate society. We give compassionate electrocution and compassionate lethal injection. We are a great nation. I am not a dictator. He is. I am not a barbarian. He is. And he is. They all are. I possess moral authority. You see this fist? This is my moral authority. And don't you forget it.'"
"I have referred to death quite a few times this evening. I shall now quote a poem of my own called 'Death'.
Where was the dead body found?
Who found the dead body?
Was the dead body dead when found?
How was the dead body found?
Who was the dead body?
Who was the father or daughter or brother
Or uncle or sister or mother or son
Of the dead and abandoned body?
Was the body dead when abandoned?
Was the body abandoned?
By whom had it been abandoned?
Was the dead body naked or dressed for a journey?
What made you declare the dead body dead?
Did you declare the dead body dead?
How well did you know the dead body?
How did you know the dead body was dead?
Did you wash the dead body
Did you close both its eyes
Did you bury the body
Did you leave it abandoned
Did you kiss the dead body"
Read the whole lecture HERE.
"Political language, as used by politicians, does not venture into any of this territory since the majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed."
"I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a winner. Listen to all American presidents on television say the words, 'the American people', as in the sentence, 'I say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of the American people and I ask the American people to trust their president in the action he is about to take on behalf of the American people.'"
"The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to their graves in the dark. Funerals are unobtrusive, out of harm's way. The mutilated rot in their beds, some for the rest of their lives. So the dead and the mutilated both rot, in different kinds of graves."
"I know that President Bush has many extremely competent speech writers but I would like to volunteer for the job myself. I propose the following short address which he can make on television to the nation. I see him grave, hair carefully combed, serious, winning, sincere, often beguiling, sometimes employing a wry smile, curiously attractive, a man's man.
'God is good. God is great. God is good. My God is good. Bin Laden's God is bad. His is a bad God. Saddam's God was bad, except he didn't have one. He was a barbarian. We are not barbarians. We don't chop people's heads off. We believe in freedom. So does God. I am not a barbarian. I am the democratically elected leader of a freedom-loving democracy. We are a compassionate society. We give compassionate electrocution and compassionate lethal injection. We are a great nation. I am not a dictator. He is. I am not a barbarian. He is. And he is. They all are. I possess moral authority. You see this fist? This is my moral authority. And don't you forget it.'"
"I have referred to death quite a few times this evening. I shall now quote a poem of my own called 'Death'.
Where was the dead body found?
Who found the dead body?
Was the dead body dead when found?
How was the dead body found?
Who was the dead body?
Who was the father or daughter or brother
Or uncle or sister or mother or son
Of the dead and abandoned body?
Was the body dead when abandoned?
Was the body abandoned?
By whom had it been abandoned?
Was the dead body naked or dressed for a journey?
What made you declare the dead body dead?
Did you declare the dead body dead?
How well did you know the dead body?
How did you know the dead body was dead?
Did you wash the dead body
Did you close both its eyes
Did you bury the body
Did you leave it abandoned
Did you kiss the dead body"
Sunday, December 04, 2005
A Typical Conversation
“As for the claim that you cannot create order through only random events—true enough. Except evolution is not random.”
I think you mean natural selection is not random. Are you saying that mutations are not random too?
I’ve discussed this issue many times. Natural selection is not random in the sense that all offspring do not have an equal chance of survival. Those better suited to their environment will have a better chance. Those less suited will have a lesser chance.
But natural selection can only act on what is already present. It has no power to create, assemble or design the variation it acts on. According to neo-darwinists, this variation is the result of random mutations. So, it’s disingenuous to say evolution is not random.
In addition, the jury is still not in on the randomness of mutations. As you see from Sean (Carroll)’s article, he pretty much puts paid to the Modern Synthesis. Mayr was wrong when he expected the genomes of vastly different species to differ vastly. As Carroll states “Natural selection has not repeatedly forged eyes from scratch. Rather, eye formation has common genetic ingredients, and a wide range of eye types incorporate parts, such as photoreceptor cells and light-sensing proteins, that have long been under the command of the Pax-6 gene.”
So, variation does not flow from random mutation, it flows from a pre-existing set of toolkit genes that pre-date the appearance of the adaptations they control.
And we’re left with the question: “where did these ‘toolkit’ genes come from?” They could not have arisen by mutation and selection because these mechanisms can only act at the organism level. For a “toolkit” gene to evolve, it would have to be present and functional in some organism. But we know now that these genes pre-date the organisms and the adaptations they control. They preceed all that comes after them.
They are “Genesis” genes.
PZ Myers Says:
Nonsense.
Evolution is not random, although it contains random components. Our chemistry is driven by stochastic processes, but no one claims that metabolism is random. Well, at least no one with any sense.
Regulatory genes have homologs in single-celled organisms. We are talking about genes that modulate the expression of other genes, and of course these are present in organisms that don’t have eyes. That is no big deal at all.
Also, these genes are found in families. They arise from duplication and divergence of precursors. Your objection is no objection at all, but simply yet another testimonial to your cluelessness.
Paul,
You wrote that “Evolution is not random, although it contains random components.” but you really mean to say that evolution is not random because it contains non-random components.
The fact that there is a non-random component to natural selection, the differential survival ability based on fitness, does not make the entire process non-random, just like the presence of random components does not make the whole process random.
You wrote: “Our chemistry is driven by stochastic processes, but no one claims that metabolism is random. ”
Agreed. The presence of stochastic processes
does not mean that the whole process is stochastic. Any more than the presence of non-random components makes the whole process non-random.
But the point is, that natural selection can only act on what already exists. The fact that natural selection has one non-random component does not overcome the fact that the variation is allegedly (by neo-darwinians) generated by purely random processes. In addition, as I have said many times, there is no nexus established between the components of mutation and natural selection and the emergence of highly organized structures, processes and systems. You simply cannot get from point A to point B.
You wrote: “Your objection is no objection at all, but simply yet another testimonial to your cluelessness.”
I might have let this go, and let you have the last word but you’ve always got to throw in the zinger. You have absolutely no scientific explanation for the existence of these “toolkit” genes. The development of form depends upon turning on and turning off genes at different times and different places. This is controlled in part by regulatory genes, which, as you say, have homologs in single celled organisms.
But the question still remains. Where did the regulatory genes come from and who (or what) programmed them to orchestrate the the symphony of development, to activate the genes at just the right time and in just the right places to create the final product: an integrated, functional system made up of multiple structures and processes?
"It is clear from Mr. Wagner’s last post that he probably has a firm belief in his statements and I agree that logic and reason will not sway him. However, I do enjoy these types of posts as they get you to think critically about such statements, and they give you an insight into some of the muddled thinking of ID proponents.
"But the question still remains. Where did the regulatory genes come from and who (or what) programmed them to orchestrate the the symphony of development, to activate the genes at just the right time and in just the right places to create the final product: an integrated, functional system made up of multiple structures and processes?"
This statement of Mr. Wagner’s really highlights the origin of his confusion and that of many creationists. The assumption is that a Genesis event must have occured. Without it, you can not explain your existence. Science does not deal with assumptions, it deals with data, therefore it can not include an assumption about God. Does this mean God does not exist? No it only means there is no testable data to point to a Creator’s involvement in the existence of life. Any IDers or creationists reading this, please remember that word ‘testable’.
Evolution does not disprove God, it instead simply shows that life is alot more complicated than originally envisioned 2000 years ago by the authors of the Bible.
I hope that in replying to these posts, we can help show non-scientists the flaws in ID or creationist reasoning with clear and concise rebuttals."
I went back and looked and sure enough, I capitalized “Genesis”. That makes it look like I’m referring to a supernatural event, which I’m not. I used the word “genesis” in the sense that they are the origin, rather than the result of a process of evolution. In my world, the world of science, god plays no role.
You say “Science does not deal with assumptions, it deals with data,”. This is true. But evolutionary theory (neo-darwinism) is based wholly on an assumption: that a nexus exists between the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection and the emergence of highly organized structures, processes and systems. There is absolutely no empirical data to support this audacious conclusion, yet it is the foundation of modern evolutionary thinking.
The main flaw in your thinking is that you equate the scientific consideration of intelligent input with religious creationism and a supernatural being. While it is true that a majority of ID proponents are religious creationists and their “intelligence” is god, that should not preclude science from investigating a phenomenon that most likely resides in the natural world and will eventually by explained by the scientific method.
And so it goes....
I think you mean natural selection is not random. Are you saying that mutations are not random too?
I’ve discussed this issue many times. Natural selection is not random in the sense that all offspring do not have an equal chance of survival. Those better suited to their environment will have a better chance. Those less suited will have a lesser chance.
But natural selection can only act on what is already present. It has no power to create, assemble or design the variation it acts on. According to neo-darwinists, this variation is the result of random mutations. So, it’s disingenuous to say evolution is not random.
In addition, the jury is still not in on the randomness of mutations. As you see from Sean (Carroll)’s article, he pretty much puts paid to the Modern Synthesis. Mayr was wrong when he expected the genomes of vastly different species to differ vastly. As Carroll states “Natural selection has not repeatedly forged eyes from scratch. Rather, eye formation has common genetic ingredients, and a wide range of eye types incorporate parts, such as photoreceptor cells and light-sensing proteins, that have long been under the command of the Pax-6 gene.”
So, variation does not flow from random mutation, it flows from a pre-existing set of toolkit genes that pre-date the appearance of the adaptations they control.
And we’re left with the question: “where did these ‘toolkit’ genes come from?” They could not have arisen by mutation and selection because these mechanisms can only act at the organism level. For a “toolkit” gene to evolve, it would have to be present and functional in some organism. But we know now that these genes pre-date the organisms and the adaptations they control. They preceed all that comes after them.
They are “Genesis” genes.
PZ Myers Says:
Nonsense.
Evolution is not random, although it contains random components. Our chemistry is driven by stochastic processes, but no one claims that metabolism is random. Well, at least no one with any sense.
Regulatory genes have homologs in single-celled organisms. We are talking about genes that modulate the expression of other genes, and of course these are present in organisms that don’t have eyes. That is no big deal at all.
Also, these genes are found in families. They arise from duplication and divergence of precursors. Your objection is no objection at all, but simply yet another testimonial to your cluelessness.
Paul,
You wrote that “Evolution is not random, although it contains random components.” but you really mean to say that evolution is not random because it contains non-random components.
The fact that there is a non-random component to natural selection, the differential survival ability based on fitness, does not make the entire process non-random, just like the presence of random components does not make the whole process random.
You wrote: “Our chemistry is driven by stochastic processes, but no one claims that metabolism is random. ”
Agreed. The presence of stochastic processes
does not mean that the whole process is stochastic. Any more than the presence of non-random components makes the whole process non-random.
But the point is, that natural selection can only act on what already exists. The fact that natural selection has one non-random component does not overcome the fact that the variation is allegedly (by neo-darwinians) generated by purely random processes. In addition, as I have said many times, there is no nexus established between the components of mutation and natural selection and the emergence of highly organized structures, processes and systems. You simply cannot get from point A to point B.
You wrote: “Your objection is no objection at all, but simply yet another testimonial to your cluelessness.”
I might have let this go, and let you have the last word but you’ve always got to throw in the zinger. You have absolutely no scientific explanation for the existence of these “toolkit” genes. The development of form depends upon turning on and turning off genes at different times and different places. This is controlled in part by regulatory genes, which, as you say, have homologs in single celled organisms.
But the question still remains. Where did the regulatory genes come from and who (or what) programmed them to orchestrate the the symphony of development, to activate the genes at just the right time and in just the right places to create the final product: an integrated, functional system made up of multiple structures and processes?
"It is clear from Mr. Wagner’s last post that he probably has a firm belief in his statements and I agree that logic and reason will not sway him. However, I do enjoy these types of posts as they get you to think critically about such statements, and they give you an insight into some of the muddled thinking of ID proponents.
"But the question still remains. Where did the regulatory genes come from and who (or what) programmed them to orchestrate the the symphony of development, to activate the genes at just the right time and in just the right places to create the final product: an integrated, functional system made up of multiple structures and processes?"
This statement of Mr. Wagner’s really highlights the origin of his confusion and that of many creationists. The assumption is that a Genesis event must have occured. Without it, you can not explain your existence. Science does not deal with assumptions, it deals with data, therefore it can not include an assumption about God. Does this mean God does not exist? No it only means there is no testable data to point to a Creator’s involvement in the existence of life. Any IDers or creationists reading this, please remember that word ‘testable’.
Evolution does not disprove God, it instead simply shows that life is alot more complicated than originally envisioned 2000 years ago by the authors of the Bible.
I hope that in replying to these posts, we can help show non-scientists the flaws in ID or creationist reasoning with clear and concise rebuttals."
I went back and looked and sure enough, I capitalized “Genesis”. That makes it look like I’m referring to a supernatural event, which I’m not. I used the word “genesis” in the sense that they are the origin, rather than the result of a process of evolution. In my world, the world of science, god plays no role.
You say “Science does not deal with assumptions, it deals with data,”. This is true. But evolutionary theory (neo-darwinism) is based wholly on an assumption: that a nexus exists between the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection and the emergence of highly organized structures, processes and systems. There is absolutely no empirical data to support this audacious conclusion, yet it is the foundation of modern evolutionary thinking.
The main flaw in your thinking is that you equate the scientific consideration of intelligent input with religious creationism and a supernatural being. While it is true that a majority of ID proponents are religious creationists and their “intelligence” is god, that should not preclude science from investigating a phenomenon that most likely resides in the natural world and will eventually by explained by the scientific method.
And so it goes....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)