#11966: — 12/27  at  01:45 PM
There was a movie I've been trying to remember the name of... something like "the real monkey trial"... made in the 60's I think. If I remember right, it involved a trial determining whether a recently discovered isolated village of proto-humans have civil rights under the Constitution, by determining whether they are "human". Ring a bell for anyone? The "hobbits" brought it to mind.

#11968: Bryson Brown — 12/27  at  01:53 PM
Speaking as a professional philosopher, I can sum up my response to Joe Carter's little screed in defense of ID in one word: Yech.

Gap arguments are gap arguments, whatever you invoke to magically fill the gap (in fact, the vaguer you are about it, the less content the theory has).

A supernatural designer is only a regress argument away-- how could natural alien designers arise naturally if life on earth couldn't?

Natural selection is not a 'chance' mechanism (a label that leads directly to the old 'tornado in a junk-yard', one-step probability arguments against evolution), but a subtle combination of undirected variation with the directive pressure of selection.

And evolution is easily falsifiable-- as Darwin recognized (and this point doesn't get enough play, in my view) any complex feature that did not serve or have a history of serving the survival/ reproductive needs of organisms that have it (or genetically related organisms) would be utterly inexplicable-- no schmoos allowed!

Let's call it there for now: If I got this as an essay in my philosophy of earth and life sciences course (2nd year) it would be an easy F.

#11970: DarkSyde — 12/27  at  01:59 PM
Cov, Robert Heinlein had a short story kinda like that. It's called "Jerry Was a Man" or something like that I think.
Bryson those are some good points. I think you should post something along those lines on that thread if you find the time.

#11982: Joe Carter — 12/27  at  03:23 PM
Speaking as a professional philosopher, I can sum up my response to Joe Carter’s little screed in defense of ID in one word: Yech.

Speaking as an amateur philosopher I can sum up my response to your rebuttal in one word too: lame. ; )

Gap arguments are gap arguments, whatever you invoke to magically fill the gap (in fact, the vaguer you are about it, the less content the theory has).

So then you agree with me that claiming that natural selection fill the gap is an invalid explanation, right?

A supernatural designer is only a regress argument away— how could natural alien designers arise naturally if life on earth couldn’t?


Because the parameters necessary for life to arise naturally could be different in other areas of our universe. The entire universe did not share the same primordial characteristics as the earth.

Natural selection is not a ‘chance’ mechanism (a label that leads directly to the old ‘tornado in a junk-yard’, one-step probability arguments against evolution), but a subtle combination of undirected variation with the directive pressure of selection.

And this differs from chance….? Seriously, rewording it to make it sound fancy does not chance the fact that the process is undirected and relies on chance occurences. You can’t just simply skip the “one-step” process just because you can’t explain how it happens.

And evolution is easily falsifiable— as Darwin recognized (and this point doesn’t get enough play, in my view) any complex feature that did not serve or have a history of serving the survival/ reproductive needs of organisms that have it (or genetically related organisms) would be utterly inexplicable— no schmoos allowed!

You would think a professional philosopher would be able to spot a circular argument. If the feature didn’t serve survival/reproductive needs of an organism then the organism would have never survived or reproduced. Can you find a single example where a Darwinian advocate has claimed that a complex feature which has no apparent usefulness for survival? No. And you never will. They will simply claim that we don’t know how it was useful for survival. Natural selection is a circular argument and is therefore not falsifiable.

Let’s call it there for now: If I got this as an essay in my philosophy of earth and life sciences course (2nd year) it would be an easy F.

If you truly taught a philosophy of earth and life sciences course” I would say that you should be fired for incompetence. (I don’t mean to be snarky but I really would expect more from a philosopher.)

#11988: — 12/27  at  04:14 PM
OK, I think I can cover at least some of your points, Joe:

Gap arguments are gap arguments, whatever you invoke to magically fill the gap (in fact, the vaguer you are about it, the less content the theory has).

So then you agree with me that claiming that natural selection fill the gap is an invalid explanation, right?

Evolution by natural selection comprises everything but the so-called "gaps". A person who believes that evolution is correct does not need to fill the "gaps" with anything, since they do not exist to that person.

A supernatural designer is only a regress argument away— how could natural alien designers arise naturally if life on earth couldn’t?

Because the parameters necessary for life to arise naturally could be different in other areas of our universe. The entire universe did not share the same primordial characteristics as the earth.

I take your point on the difference in primordial conditions affecting abiogenesis. I suppose the emphasis has been on whether or not it could have occurred at all and that where it took place is a secondary issue.

Natural selection is not a ‘chance’ mechanism (a label that leads directly to the old ‘tornado in a junk-yard’, one-step probability arguments against evolution), but a subtle combination of undirected variation with the directive pressure of selection.

And this differs from chance….? Seriously, rewording it to make it sound fancy does not chance the fact that the process is undirected and relies on chance occurences. You can’t just simply skip the “one-step” process just because you can’t explain how it happens.

As for the "randomness" of natural selection, there is<i> a difference between this force and chance. A tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling an aircraft is pure chance. Analogies for natural selection are hard to come by, so here's a quick biology lesson (your lack of knowledge about natural selection suggests that you might need it to understand the concept, although I don't mean to patronise). Mutations (your "junk" in your junkyard) are accumulated randomly, but only those which confer an advantage to the organism are retained. This is the directional force that Bryson was talking about and provides a filter for ineffective mutations. Once one mutation is acquired, the offspring of that individual come to dominate until a further mutation occurs which confers a better advantage on another individual. Thus more and more mutations are accumulated and organisms become more and more complex as a result of "selective pressures". These are directional and not pure chance.

The problem with the aircraft/tornado/junkyard analogy is that it is not possible to tweak it in order to make it a correct analogy for natural selection. Natural selection and evolution work on organisms that began at a low level of complexity and arrived at modern forms via a string of viable intermediate forms. An aircraft requires all it's constituent parts to perform it's function: flight.

<i>And evolution is easily falsifiable— as Darwin recognized (and this point doesn’t get enough play, in my view) any complex feature that did not serve or have a history of serving the survival/ reproductive needs of organisms that have it (or genetically related organisms) would be utterly inexplicable— no schmoos allowed!

You would think a professional philosopher would be able to spot a circular argument. If the feature didn’t serve survival/reproductive needs of an organism then the organism would have never survived or reproduced. Can you find a single example where a Darwinian advocate has claimed that a complex feature which has no apparent usefulness for survival? No. And you never will. They will simply claim that we don’t know how it was useful for survival. Natural selection is a circular argument and is therefore not falsifiable.

You miss the point here, Joe. An organism can survive with it's usual set of phenotypic traits as well as additional traits so long as they are not deleterious. If these additional traits were shown to have a negative effect on survival then they could not have arisen by natural selection. The point of natural selection (which is common sense, really) is that an organism with good genes has good phenotypic traits and so a better chance of survival. That individual will pass on its genes and traits to the next generation with a greater frequency than other, "less-fit" individuals.

As ID proponents are at pains to point out, not all scientists agree with Darwin's theory. If one of them could make a decent case for a non-adaptive phenotypic trait then this would call evolution into question. I don't know of any... Indeed, it is usually clear how an adaptation beneficially affects an organism's survival and, if it is not obvious, experiments can be performed to examine the effect of that trait on fitness.

#11989: — 12/27  at  05:14 PM
Poor Joe Carter. He's only trying to enlighten you fools. Haven't you guys learned by now from history? Every time science and religion disagree, religion is proven right in the end, and science has to 'reinterpret' its dogma. Geez Louise.

#11990: DarkSyde — 12/27  at  05:16 PM
"Tim-may!"-Timmy from South Park.

#11991: — 12/27  at  05:16 PM
Damn, Creationist Timmy reminds me of someone...oh yeah, Tom Selleck!

#11992: Bryson Brown — 12/27  at  05:16 PM
Dear me. It's never easy to deal with people whose level of certainty exceeds their level of knowledge.

Gap arguments are weak because they are 'ad hoc'-- they posit a 'gap filler' whose only role is to fill the gaps they have identified. Hanging a sign ('God, or maybe ET did it') on a puzzle is not helpful, since it doesn't point us towards any further predictions.

By contrast, evolution (descent with modification) makes all kinds of predictions, many of them carefully identified and explored by Darwin himself. These include: mechanisms of inheritance should allow variation to persist long enough to be selected for (hence old ideas about 'blending' inheritance would have led to trouble had subsequent genetic investigation supported them); anatomical trees should match molecular trees (as indeed they do); sharp, multi-criterial taxonomic divisions between present forms of life should look increasingly arbitrary as we examine fossils from the time at which the lineages split (and they do)...and the list goes on and on, with increasing depth and detail in every direction.

So evolution is not a mere gap hypothesis. It offers an explanation that links and constrains otherwise disparate biological phenomena across the board-- hence Dobzhansky's famous remark: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. By contrast, ID makes no contribution to 'making sense of biology' whatsoever.

The regress to a supernatural designer is inevitable. ID claims regarding 'information', 'specified complexity' and 'irreducible complexity' are completely general-- they don't depend on the specifics of conditions on earth. (How could they, when we have no detailed listing of all the chemical environments and processes occuring on the early earth?) The conclusions they reach about the impossibility of naturalistic processes accounting for these phenomena are meant to apply to the entire natural (non-intentional) order. Otherwise, they have no argument for a designer at all.

The difference between what I described as the mechanism of natural selection and 'one-step chance' accounts is what Dawkins calls the 'ratchet': Anything useful in any way to the survival and reproduction of an organism stays around, and is available both for subsequent modification and refinement, and for combination with other features of the organism, where its descendents may wind up serving in very different ways.

It's ridiculous to claim that no organism with a feature that's 'useless' as far as survival and reproduction of it and its relatives is concerned could survive. Male nipples are a good, if small, example. Natural selection favours organisms that work well enough in the circumstances--and this can happen even if they have some traits that are sub-optimal or useless.

Further, every test of every hypothesis requires auxilliaries-- so it's not always obvious what a particular feature contributes to an organism's survival and reproduction. But this in now way prevents us from recognizing clear cases-- hence my reference to schmoos.

Consider also Darwin's work on orchids & their interaction with various insect pollinators. Complex features that look to be exquisitely, exclusively ornamental (once a popular argument for design in its own right) turned out to be straightforwardly related to reproduction. Evolution again proved its worth as a working hypothesis in science. So, no, I can't think of a scientist who has identified a complex structure that is and always has been useless for survival and reproduction. But they have looked carefully at many such structures and tested for and identified their contributions! So what makes you so sure there are useless ones?

Finally, on my qualifications. Well, you're welcome to look up the list of recent papers on my website & let the Dean know if you find them somehow wanting. I have a genuine PhD from the University of Pittsburgh, was made a full professor in 1999 (at 43), and, well, more than enough said...

Finally, I knew it might rankle, but what earns you the 'F' is that your remarks show no awareness of any of these points. This kind of ignoratio elenchi (look it up if you must) is standard issue ID behaviour. It turns ID as it's practiced from a weak hypothesis that could be true, but as yet (absent a detailed account of the designer that produces constraints we can test for) does no useful scientific work (and this is why no ID work has found its way into peer-reviewed science, with one disgraceful exception) into a classic example of pseudoscience.

Do you think scientists sit around idly, contemplating (and congratulating themselves on) their natural view of things? It's actually hard work to identify and gather detailed evidence that tests a hypothesis (as Darwin himself said, mere observation is pointless-- we need to direct our observations towards a view that they can test, or they will just sit there as a list of miscellanies in our notebooks).

In fact, idle, self-congratulatory contemplation is more typical of the religiously minded-- though for any intellectually self-respecting religious tradition, it's one of the deepest forms of sin.

Sorry to be harsh, but I expect more modesty from people who don't know what they're talking about.

#11994: Bryson Brown — 12/27  at  05:46 PM
Rats. I think I ought to have checked the comments list before posting that last-- it's distant enough from the post that provoked it to be a bit obscure where it is. For anyone who does want to read it through (some of it duplicates earlier points from unstopablechimp), it will help if you compare the remarks I make, in order, with the criticisms of my original post (#2), posted by Joe Carter in comment #4.

#11997: Ben — 12/27  at  06:12 PM
Steve's BUSTED!!!!

Ew, what's THAT doing in here? Can someone get me the Joe Carter spray from the kitchen cupboard please? Christ, PZ leaves for a week and the whole place goes to hell...

#11999: Chris Clarke — 12/27  at  06:59 PM

I don’t mean to be snarky

No, Joe, I expect your attitude arose wholly accidentally, out of random combinations of letters over a great length of time.

#12001: Joe Carter — 12/27  at  07:56 PM
Chimp Evolution by natural selection comprises everything but the so-called “gaps”. A person who believes that evolution is correct does not need to fill the “gaps” with anything, since they do not exist to that person.

Interesting. So replace “person who believes that evolution is correct” with “person who believes that YEC/ID/TE is correct” and it no longer becomes a “gap” argument? I’m not sure what you mean.

Analogies for natural selection are hard to come by, so here’s a quick biology lesson (your lack of knowledge about natural selection suggests that you might need it to understand the concept, although I don’t mean to patronise).

No offense taken. But I should clarify that a person can understand what is being explained and still not find it plausible.

Mutations (your “junk” in your junkyard) are accumulated randomly, but only those which confer an advantage to the organism are retained.

Mutations are retained if they are advantageous. How do we know that a mutation was advantageous? Because it was retained. But didn’t we define advantageous as what was retained? Um, yeah, but circular reasoning is allowable because…? (Okay, that part still eludes me.)

You miss the point here, Joe. An organism can survive with it’s usual set of phenotypic traits as well as additional traits so long as they are not deleterious. If these additional traits were shown to have a negative effect on survival then they could not have arisen by natural selection.

Um, but I think that is the point. Your defining advantageous traits as those that arise by natural selection because anything that arises by natural selection is advantageous.

Bryson: Gap arguments are weak because they are ‘ad hoc’— they posit a ‘gap filler’ whose only role is to fill the gaps they have identified. Hanging a sign (‘God, or maybe ET did it’) on a puzzle is not helpful, since it doesn’t point us towards any further predictions.

By contrast, evolution (descent with modification) makes all kinds of predictions, many of them carefully identified and explored by Darwin himself.</i>

I think you are confused about gap arguments. They don’t suddenly become more plausible because they lead to beneficial outcomes. Whether the Darwinian explanations that fill the “gap” leads to future explanations doesn’t make it true. It is still a “gap filler.”

The conclusions they reach about the impossibility of naturalistic processes accounting for these phenomena are meant to apply to the entire natural (non-intentional) order. Otherwise, they have no argument for a designer at all.

You don’t appear to have much understanding of ID’s arguments. Francis Crick’s idea of directed panspermia was entirely natural and didn’t appeal to supernatural phenomena.

The difference between what I described as the mechanism of natural selection and ‘one-step chance’ accounts is what Dawkins calls the ‘ratchet’: Anything useful in any way to the survival and reproduction of an organism stays around, and is available both for subsequent modification and refinement, and for combination with other features of the organism, where its descendents may wind up serving in very different ways.

The fact that the same point can be endlessly repeated and yet no one recognizes it circularity is simply astounding. Anything useful to survival stays around, therefore any feature that stays around must be useful.

Further, every test of every hypothesis requires auxilliaries— so it’s not always obvious what a particular feature contributes to an organism’s survival and reproduction. But this in now way prevents us from recognizing clear cases— hence my reference to schmoos.

And here again we find another hedge against it being falisifiable. Since we can’t know whether a feature was beneficial (or may be beneficial in the future) it cannot be used to falsify the theory. In other words, natural selection is a tautology and outside the realm of falsification.

So, no, I can’t think of a scientist who has identified a complex structure that is and always has been useless for survival and reproduction. But they have looked carefully at many such structures and tested for and identified their contributions! So what makes you so sure there are useless ones?

I don’t. But if we cannot tell whether anything is “useless” then we can’t really know if natural selection is true.

Finally, on my qualifications. Well, you’re welcome to look up the list of recent papers on my website & let the Dean know if you find them somehow wanting. I have a genuine PhD from the University of Pittsburgh, was made a full professor in 1999 (at 43), and, well, more than enough said…

I certainly wasn’t questioning your credentials. I was only questioning your application of logic.

Finally, I knew it might rankle, but what earns you the ‘F’ is that your remarks show no awareness of any of these points. This kind of ignoratio elenchi (look it up if you must) is standard issue ID behaviour. It turns ID as it’s practiced from a weak hypothesis that could be true, but as yet (absent a detailed account of the designer that produces constraints we can test for) does no useful scientific work (and this is why no ID work has found its way into peer-reviewed science, with one disgraceful exception) into a classic example of pseudoscience.

A classic example of pseudoscience is a theory that is beyond the realm of falsifiability. As a philosopher, you should be aware of that.

Sorry to be harsh, but I expect more modesty from people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

You must be a very humble fellow then. ; )

Chris: No, Joe, I expect your attitude arose wholly accidentally, out of random combinations of letters over a great length of time.


Actually, I have no attitude since that would require the existence of qualia. Such folk psychology is a mere myth “believed” by those who can’t stomach the truth of eliminative physicalism.

#12002: — 12/27  at  08:37 PM
Yes, yes, Joe, we all know what you think about biology. Why don't you give us some new information. Tell me about how the theoretical physicists are wrong, or how the chemists are fools, or something; endlessly harping on biologists is boring. Your qualifications in Solid State Physics are I'm sure as good as your qualifications in biology, please enlighten me on your thoughs about density-functional theory of electron gases. When you are so talented that without any formal training you can see through problems that confound the experts, when you are so smart that you know better than the relevant departments of the best schools, please, please, don't repeat yourself, treat us to more breakthroughs in other fields.

#12003: Joe Carter — 12/27  at  08:44 PM
Tell me about how the theoretical physicists are wrong, or how the chemists are fools, or something; endlessly harping on biologists is boring.

One key difference is that physics and chemistry are empirical sciences while evolutionary biology is (mainly) a historical science. Also, I can’t think of any examples where physicists or chemists rely on circular reasoning to support their theories.

When you are so talented that without any formal training you can see through problems that confound the experts, when you are so smart that you know better than the relevant departments of the best schools, please, please, don’t repeat yourself, treat us to more breakthroughs in other fields.

I don’t think it takes either formal training or a high IQ to spot basic logical flaws. If its falsifiable and not based on circular reasoning then you should be able to explain. You can do that, can’t you Steve?

#12004: DarkSyde — 12/27  at  08:55 PM
Common descent is as empirical as stellar nucleo-synthesis. As empirical as Plate Tectonics. Plate Tectonics is a good analogy becuase you can think of it visually. That seems to help folks. It's much harder to visualze changes in a lineage.
The mechanism by which a given evolutionary event occurred is historical, if it's not something minor we can repeat, and the confidence of the event description is as good, or as poor, as the evidence for the respective event in question. ASomethings we now a great deal about, others are cloaked in mystery, all depending on what nature sees fit to preserve in both fossil and living biota.

But common descent is what most anti-science forms of creationism are concerned with. And you can bank on common desent being as solid as many other fields of empirical science. When extensive genetic testing of a potential relative is conducted, it is done so empirically. It's not a lucky guess, the results can be checked via double blind methodology, and it delivers the goods to a high degree of precision. These same methods are only one of the many ways we can determine that humans and chimps (Or mice, or crocs, or worms, etc) share common ancestors.

#12005: Bryson Brown — 12/27  at  08:58 PM
Joe, incorrigible ignorance is a sad thing to see.

Re. Gaps-- Some 'explanations' do some work-- others don't. As it stands, ID does none, while evolution does a lot. Science needs explanations that really work, because only they constrain what we expect to observe in non-trivial ways.

As to Crick's proposal, the fact that some naturalistic versions of ID exist does not show that the ID movement and its arguments aren't fully committed to a non-naturalistic version.

For the rest, I'm not going to try to teach you philosophy of science here-- I don't think you make a promising student, anyway. But these charges of circularity and unfalsifiability are just low intellectual comedy, as a little study of biology, or any other science, might just show you.

The fact that tests involve a rich interaction between theory and data doesn't mean that the tests can't show we're on the wrong track. Popper's position on falsifiability demands a practical commitment to reject a theory under specifiable conditions--and there are many specifiable conditions under which evolution's wiggle room would be cut off. Pseudo-science has more to do with how people respond to evidence (suppressing, ignoring, dismissing) than with the 'logic' of the theory. See, for instance, Adolf Grunbaum on psychoanalysis.

#12006: Chris Clarke — 12/27  at  09:09 PM

I don’t think it takes either formal training or a high IQ to spot basic logical flaws.

And yet somehow these logical flaws have escaped notice by millions of biologists around the world. I'm sure they're all devoutly grateful that you're here to catch their embarrassingly simple errors for them.

#12007: DarkSyde — 12/27  at  09:10 PM
FYI-Joe is here because, to some degree, I invited him here with a trackback. You guys are welcome to debate as you see fit, and I disagree with almost everything Joe writes about evolution on a very regular basis [grin]. But someone who responds, is civil, and isn't trolling, is someone I think worthy of returning that courtesy to.

#12008: Joe Carter — 12/27  at  09:23 PM
Bryson: Re. Gaps— Some ‘explanations’ do some work— others don’t. As it stands, ID does none, while evolution does a lot. Science needs explanations that really work, because only they constrain what we expect to observe in non-trivial ways.

So you defend the “gaps” by resorting to special pleading? Okay. If that’s the tactic you want to go with I’ll let you keep it.

As to Crick’s proposal, the fact that some naturalistic versions of ID exist does not show that the ID movement and its arguments aren’t fully committed to a non-naturalistic version.

Agreed. So what? What does that have to do with its plausibility as a research program?

For the rest, I’m not going to try to teach you philosophy of science here— I don’t think you make a promising student, anyway.

Thanks. Other than presenting examples of fallacious thinking I’m not sure what you could teach.

But these charges of circularity and unfalsifiability are just low intellectual comedy, as a little study of biology, or any other science, might just show you.

Perhaps it would. Of course I’m not sure how more study saves a circular argument. I’ll just assume that you don’t have the answer and leave it at that.

Popper’s position on falsifiability demands a practical commitment to reject a theory under specifiable conditions—and there are many specifiable conditions under which evolution’s wiggle room would be cut off.

I’ll give credit where it’s due. That is the most honest response I’ve heard all day. Better to scrap the concept of falsifiability than a good theory, eh?

Pseudo-science has more to do with how people respond to evidence (suppressing, ignoring, dismissing) than with the ‘logic’ of the theory.

Quite correct, which is why it is necessary to distinguish science from pseudo-science. Neo-Darwinism could be perfectly “logical” without fitting the criteria for a genuine “scientific” explanation.

Chris: I’m sure they’re all devoutly grateful that you’re here to catch their embarrassingly simple errors for them.

Glad to help. If they would like to thank me they can make donations to my PayPal account.

#12010: Kevin — 12/28  at  07:06 AM
Joe,

It would seem that you're often responding to people in ways which misrepresent the substance of their arguments.

Popper’s position on falsifiability demands a practical commitment to reject a theory under specifiable conditions—and there are many specifiable conditions under which evolution’s wiggle room would be cut off.

I’ll give credit where it’s due. That is the most honest response I’ve heard all day. Better to scrap the concept of falsifiability than a good theory, eh?

Bryson Brown said nothing about scrapping the concept of falsifiability. This statement from you is a complete lie. Quite the contrary, by stating that there are conditions in which the wiggle room of evolution is restricted, he quite clearly states that there are boundaries beyond which evolution is falsified. He has already stated one condition (schmoos) which would instantly falsify evolution. You misread that response too, claiming a circular argument where none exists. It's difficult at this point to see your position here being one of honest disagreement, given how flagrantly you have put words in Bryson Brown's mouth. If you refuse to be honest, then you're not really worth wasting one's time with in dialogue.

#12011: — 12/28  at  07:45 AM
Joe,

Evolution by natural selection comprises everything but the so-called “gaps”. A person who believes that evolution is correct does not need to fill the “gaps” with anything, since they do not exist to that person.

Interesting. So replace “person who believes that evolution is correct” with “person who believes that YEC/ID/TE is correct” and it no longer becomes a “gap” argument? I’m not sure what you mean.

Sorry, I didn't state that very well... What I meant was that the "gaps" in the theory are bound to be there due to the nature of the scientific method. For example, intermediates in the fossil record are only missing because we haven't found them yet. A person who believes in evolution will not consider these "gaps" as flaws in the theory, but a natural part of it. It comes down to whether or not you think that the "gaps" can be filled by scientific observation (which I would suggest they are being) or whether they cannot (and, therefore, are indicative of a designer).

Analogies for natural selection are hard to come by, so here’s a quick biology lesson (your lack of knowledge about natural selection suggests that you might need it to understand the concept, although I don’t mean to patronise).

No offense taken. But I should clarify that a person can understand what is being explained and still not find it plausible.

Absolutely! I feel the same way about Christianity. And I respect your attempts to understand the wonders of science.

Mutations (your “junk” in your junkyard) are accumulated randomly, but only those which confer an advantage to the organism are retained.

Mutations are retained if they are advantageous. How do we know that a mutation was advantageous? Because it was retained. But didn’t we define advantageous as what was retained? Um, yeah, but circular reasoning is allowable because…? (Okay, that part still eludes me.)

The presence of a mutation does not mean that it is advantageous. Sometimes deleterious mutations arise, although they often only stay for one generation since the individuals carrying that mutation do not reproduce (or at least reproduce at a lower rate than others). If deleterious mutations persisted then evolution (by natural selection) would be called into question. The argument only appears circular because natural selection is an absolute process.

You miss the point here, Joe. An organism can survive with it’s usual set of phenotypic traits as well as additional traits so long as they are not deleterious. If these additional traits were shown to have a negative effect on survival then they could not have arisen by natural selection.

Um, but I think that is the point. Your defining advantageous traits as those that arise by natural selection because anything that arises by natural selection is advantageous.

OK, I'm going to be more specific in my comments. You said:

If the feature didn’t serve survival/reproductive needs of an organism then the organism would have never survived or reproduced.

That is not true. A trait may remain if it has a neutral effect on fitness. In addition, deleterious traits may remain for a short time before being extinguished by natural selection. My point was that natural selection (and hence evolution) would be called into question if deleterious traits persisted. There is nothing circular about that. The existence of persistent, deleterious traits would falsify natural selection.

You also said:

Can you find a single example where a Darwinian advocate has claimed that a complex feature which has no apparent usefulness for survival? No. And you never will. They will simply claim that we don’t know how it was useful for survival.

Do you have some particular examples in mind? The main problems in this field come from looking at fossils and adaptations in organisms that are now extinct. Selective advantages for traits in extant organisms are much easier to spot since we can observe them in greater detail (e.g. their behaviour, physiology, biochemistry). Also, nothing empirical can be obtained from extinct organisms, so inferences need to be made from extant organisms with analogous or homologous traits. This does involve speculation, however well supported that speculation may be. This kind of speculation is bound to lack the objectivity of empirical studies. Hence, I'm sure the folk at the ICR and AIG would have a different take on many adaptations.

Therefore, natural selection is falsifiable, although you raise a valid point in that the evidence that could potentially falsify it may be rejected by the scientific community if it is not empirical. I would argue that empirical evidence would not be dismissed as easily as you think.

#12013: — 12/28  at  08:06 AM
Furthermore, there is a good discussion of the tautological implications of evolution by natural selection at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html

#12018: Bryson Brown — 12/28  at  08:48 AM
Thanks, Kevin--

After a few tries at getting something constructive out of Mr. Carter, I've realized that this is an argument only in the Monty Python sense. It's also a very compact lesson in the ID strategy: Stick to your talking points, ignore, misconstrue, and dismiss anything your opponent says, and add a heavy dose of contempt for anyone who disagrees.

This really is all about the politics-- the talking points never change because there's no advantage in actually trying to argue when you can't win, and your target audience can't really tell the difference anyway; the second reinforces the first with a pretence of being able to hold your own, and the third is part of the 'poison the well' strategy used by Johnson (with all the 'conspiracy of atheist scientists' nonsense). An interesting, very ugly package. Augustine, for one, would be horrified.

#12021: DarkSyde — 12/28  at  10:24 AM
I actually don't know how sold Joe is on non evolutionary forms of ID these days. I think he is a bit comitted, but he's reachbale. He'll listen. And he's learned quite a lot about evolutionary biology since I started following his Blog. he's not a prefessional Creationist Evangelist or anything like that. he's just a guy who's interested in it, and he's biased towards theistic explanations. He's a seriously devout Christian.

I was glad to see no one degenerated into outright mockery on either side, so well done to all in that respect. I've seen many such discussion go down that path, I've been guilty of it myself a'plenty, and it's a pointless turn for all involved. I've seen folks post very good, highly detailed responses, but if the first few words are something to the effect of 'drop dead asshole' then nothing after that is going to be heard by either party.