Michael Behe's "Billiard Shot" model

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Mercer

A. It does, but the critical difference is the word random. There’s lots of mutations, and it’s entirely possible that intelligent design or some process of the development of life can occur by changes in DNA, but the critical factor is are such changes random, are they not random, so just there are also many occurrences of the word mutation, but it was not just mutation that is the critical element of Darwinian theory. It is random mutation.

How could the critical element of Darwinian theory be mutation or even random mutation, when Darwin had neither knowledge nor any conception of mutation?

Heh, that really does reveal some exceedingly sloppy thinking on the concept of what randomness is from Behe.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@gbrooks9

Prof. Behe is trying to thread the needle… as a Professor of Science, he has to recognize TRANSPOSITION.

I do not know what you are trying to convey.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Eddie

Yes, except that he envisions these conditions existing on more than one planet in the universe, so there could be many planets where intelligent, manlike creatures have arisen. But they would have similar (not identical, but close) geologies, atmospheres, etc. So it’s not as if the whole process is aimed at our earth alone; man might be just one of several variations on a pattern of development found throughout the universe.

And presumably if God had not set up his pool shot, a natural origin of life, and the evolution of man-like organisms would be much more unlikely, but then God could simply have made the universe much bigger, leading to many more unpopulated planets and galaxies, but nevertheless guaranteeing that on some of them, man-like organisms would eventually evolve.

And we could of course imagine it going even further the other way, where God could have set up the pool-shot even better, leading to an even higher proportion of planets yielding biospheres, with sentient life evolving on them. And somewhere in that range of initial conditions that lead eventually to a planet with human-like organisms on it, we find ourselves. And this is the one, the one we should think God would have picked. If the frequency of sentient man-like organisms had been lower, we might have reason for doubt. But here it appears to be so high that, nah, musta been God that set it up.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Rumraket

Heh, that really does reveal some exceedingly sloppy thinking on the concept of what randomness is from Behe.

I think that it was completely contrived. The idea that a review or textbook chapter on the evolution of the immune system would necessarily include the word “random” in its title or abstract is absurd.

[John_Harshman]

@Eddie

I’m not going to summarize every line of argument in Denton’s book for you.

So these are not your own views, and you were only reporting Denton’s? I misinterpreted “Certainly”.

@Eddie

The geological features

How can geological features be built into the universe?

@Eddie

Yes, except that he envisions these conditions existing on more than one planet in the universe, so there could be many planets where intelligent, manlike creatures have arisen.

Perhaps you don’t quite realize what “mammal” means. Or perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by “manlike”. But biologically speaking, none of this makes sense. One might also ask why, if this is supposed to happen all over the universe, it only happened once on earth.

@Eddie

They were just rough drafts of ideas which would need to be put into more rigorous form to be be tested.

Yet more evidence that none of this is science.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@John_Harshman

So these are not your own views, and you were only reporting Denton’s? I misinterpreted “Certainly”.

I’m sorry for the mixup; maybe if I had said, “Certainly, for Denton …” that would have helped. But I thought I was answering a question about Denton’s views, so I assumed Denton would be taken for granted.

@John_Harshman

Perhaps you don’t quite realize what “mammal” means.

You’re now slipping back into that way you used to have of talking to me. Can you drop the condescension and return to your more collegial tone? I know what a mammal is, and you ought to know that I know what a mammal is. And it’s obvious that if a primate is required, then, since primates are mammals, mammals are required. And I’m reporting Denton’s account. You could save yourself a lot of trouble by reading him firsthand instead of asking me to summarize for you. Why not get it straight rather than through a filter?

@John_Harshman

One might also ask why, if this is supposed to happen all over the universe, it only happened once on earth.

We don’t know that it happened only once and on the earth. It may have happened on many other planets too far away for us to ever communicate with.

@John_Harshman

Yet more evidence that none of this is science.

I already said that I regarded “designed naturalistic evolution” as a broad concept, not as a scientific theory, and that it would need more work to turn it into a theory. Denton takes some baby steps toward turning it into a theory. If I were a scientist, I’d be trying to see if more could be done with it. It’s an interesting idea.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Rumraket

And this is the one, the one we should think God would have picked. If the frequency of sentient man-like organisms had been lower, we might have reason for doubt. But here it appears to be so high that, nah, musta been God that set it up.

In the realm of satire, Jonathan Swift doesn’t have to fear any competition from you.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

In the realm of satire, Jonathan Swift doesn’t have to fear an

No condescension there…

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Mercer

No condescension there…

He’s right though, since I’m not writing satire.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Rumraket

He’s right though, since I’m not writing satire.

Well, if you weren’t attempting satire of either Denton or of front-loaded models, the wit evidently intended by your final paragraph escapes me. Whatever point you were making was lost on me.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Eddie

Whatever point you were making was lost on me.

I’m gonna have to believe you I guess.

[John_Harshman]

@Eddie

Certainly, for Denton

Does that mean he explicitly mentioned each of those things?

@Eddie

I know what a mammal is

I’m not quite sure. “Mammal” is a clade, united by common descent, and diagnosed (though not defined; there’s a difference) by a number of characters, including mammary glands, a dentary-squamosal jaw joint, malleus and incus in the middle ear, almost but not quite always seven cervical vertebrae, etc. Now, is Denton really claiming that anything identical to this particular clade, with these particular characters, was inevitable from the beginning of the universe? I have my doubts. As for primates, you didn’t say that. You said “primate-like”, which has greater latitude than the unequivocal “mammal”.

@Eddie

You could save yourself a lot of trouble by reading him firsthand instead of asking me to summarize for you.

This assumes that I could easily find the book; I’ll look, but no guarantees. Which of Denton’s books are we talking about again?

@Eddie

We don’t know that it happened only once and on the earth.

You have added that extra word “and” that changes the meaning. I mean to ask why, on earth, there are not multiple manlike species, if it’s such a common thing to evolve. And I’m not referring to different hominids; I’m referring to independent origins of humanlike taxa on earth, as one should expect if it happens all over.

@Eddie

it would need more work to turn it into a theory.

It isn’t even a scientific hypothesis, much less a theory.

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

@Mercer

A. It does, but the critical difference is the word random. There’s lots of mutations, and it’s entirely possible that intelligent design or some process of the development of life can occur by changes in DNA, but the critical factor is are such changes random, are they not random, so just there are also many occurrences of the word mutation, but it was not just mutation that is the critical element of Darwinian theory. It is random mutation.

How could the critical element of Darwinian theory be mutation or even random mutation, when Darwin had neither knowledge nor any conception of mutation?

Heh, that really does reveal some exceedingly sloppy thinking on the concept of what randomness is from Behe.

This idea of randomness is by far the biggest issue or complaint I hear from pastors and non-scientist Christians. I can’t even count the times I’ve heard evolution described as “time and chance”, “blind purposeless chance” , or “random mutations” in sermons. “Descent with modification” seems to maybe take a backseat to “random” in terms of what concerns many Christians about evolution. I think that’s why “God-guided evolution” resonates with many, and why GAE may make inroads in some unexpected places.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Jordan

This idea of randomness is by far the biggest issue or complaint I hear from pastors and non-scientist Christians. I can’t even count the times I’ve heard evolution described as “time and chance”, “blind purposeless chance” , or “random mutations” in sermons.

Exactly; it’s also a central element of @Eddie’s sermons here.

That’s why ignoring existing heritable variation, which is obvious to any thinking person, is so polemically critical. Please explain this to @T_aquaticus.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Jordan

This idea of randomness is by far the biggest issue or complaint I hear from pastors and non-scientist Christians. I can’t even count the times I’ve heard evolution described as “time and chance”, “blind purposeless chance” , or “random mutations” in sermons. “Descent with modification” seems to maybe take a backseat to “random” in terms of what concerns many Christians about evolution. I think that’s why “God-guided evolution” resonates with many, and why GAE may make inroads in some unexpected places.

That makes sense, and to be fair I do think some scientists are partly to blame for this since I often come across sloppy or at least unclarified use of the term. It certainly isn’t less complicated by the fact that the word has multiple, some times mutually exclusive meanings.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Rumraket

That makes sense, and to be fair I do think some scientists are partly to blame for this since I often come across sloppy or at least unclarified use of the term.

But even worse, there are well-meaning descriptions of evolution that ignore existing variation!

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@Mercer

But even worse, there are well-meaning descriptions of evolution that ignore existing variation!

True. BBC, Nova - pretty much every documentary concerning evolution will have an animation where a base pair substitution happens in a strand of DNA. No mention of existing variation.

So if I am taller than my brother, which one of us is the mutant?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@RonSewell

True. BBC, Nova - pretty much every documentary concerning evolution will have an animation where a base pair substitution happens in a strand of DNA. No mention of existing variation.

And no mention that the mutation could have happened thousands/millions of years before the selection started.

@RonSewell

So if I am taller than my brother, which one of us is the mutant?

Neither. It’s a quantitative trait determined by multiple alleles at multiple polymorphic loci (or genes), aka QTLs.

The tendency of people to use the cringeworthy “the gene for X” also contributes to confusion here.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Eddie

I’m not going to summarize every line of argument in Denton’s book for you. I gave you a summary answer to your question. If you want to know all Denton’s reasons, you will have to read his book.

Gee, that sounds familiar.

I’m beginning to doubt whether you actually have read Denton, since you seem unable to describe any of their arguments any better than I have. Or maybe you tried to read them, but couldn’t understand them?

@Eddie

Denton has some suggestions in ND, but I haven’t read it for a few years and wouldn’t try to paraphrase from memory. But they were not rigorously worked out. They were just rough drafts of ideas which would need to be put into more rigorous form to be be tested.

Well, seeing as how that book is now over 20 years old, there must have been lots of refining and testing of those ideas by ID scientists. Could you tell us where we could read about this?

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@gbrooks9

@Roy

There is a way of conceiving of “front-loading” that does not eliminate free-will.

Which is?

@Roy,

Well, firstly, if you do not worry about non-humans having Free Will, it isn’t even an issue until the rise of the humans made in God’s image.

I do consider whether non-humans have free will, so it is an issue.

Secondly, the next decision is whether God intentionally puts in extra time finding the least difficult option for accomplishing his goals:

[2] Some writers imagine the Free Will of humans as not constraining God’s ability to plan/design if God intentionally selects scenarios vetted for accommodating even the least convenient of Free Will decisions. This can be compared to a Golfer who has complete mastery of his golf clubs and golf ball, who knows that if he puts the ball down six inches to the right of the 4 leaf-clover, there will be no way to hole the next shot (“you just can’t get there from here”). So, the golfer intentionally puts the ball down a few more feet away from the hole, because He knows that there is a path in the green that will take the ball to the hole. To get to the hole, he has to vet another 1,238,323,932 possible shots before he decides which is the best option.

But we know that in reality humans do make decisions that affect the course of evolution and other aspects of nature. Cf human decisions to take cats to St Stephen’s Island. It is not the case that human free will doesn’t constrain God’s hypothetical ability to plan the outcome of his design, no matter what some people may imagine.

You seem to be saying only that there is a way of conceiving that front-loading and free will are compatible, not saying that there is a way in which front-loading and free will actually are compatible.

There is a way of conceiving anything imaginable (that purple push-me-pull-yous are rampaging around NY central park?) - but that has no bearing on reality.