Dialogue with Andreas on Intelligent Design.

Mikes words in red and Andreas' in blue.

Love the title of the article sent from Andreas "Grow some Tesatbles".  Very Clever!

I am reading some stuff on this topic and I would like your opinion.  Grow Some Testables, Intelligent design ducks the rigors of science.  By William Saletan Posted Thursday, Sept. 29, 2005, at 4:30 AM PT  http://slate.msn.com/id/2127052/

Andreas writes:

Hello, dear Mike.  First, thank you for the elaborate reply. And a quick one at that. You always manage to make me _think_. ;-)

 I have now been sitting at this reply for three days and it has grown and grown. Because the thinking (and acting) of the ID people agitates me. So I hope, you don't find my piece not too biased or boring.

Mike: So what do you think?

Andreas: Well, I am a biologist. So you have three guesses ... :-D

Similar rules apply to totally different ecosystems.

A very interesting fact has been found out by scientists in biogeography ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogeography ): there is a more or less constant relation between the area (surface) of an island and the number of species found thereon (the size of individuals of a species goes in to the calculation, too). This does not only apply to real islands, but to all isolated ecosystems: lakes, natural spots isolated between houses and roads, mountain valleys, table mountains and so on.

 How does this relate to evolution? Simple: if the system used to be connected to the neighbourhood continent/mainland and was isolated later, there will usually have been a larger number of species present than could be supported. Some will go extinct right after the start of isolation, until the relation between species and area works out nicely.

Additionally the species on the island will adapt. Plants that grow airborne seeds, for example, like the dandelion, may lose this feature, because on an island flying seeds will fall into the sea and waste more often than not. Equally, on an island with rough winds flying insects may stop flying. Bigger animals shrink, smaller ones may grow.

 On the other hand, when an islands appears suddenly (as has happened as a consequence of submarine volcano eruptions) incoming species will populate the island step by step until the appropriate number of species is reached. Or: few species that arrived first will diversify and "speciation" will occur -- the development of new species. Think "Darwin Finches".

 On such a volcanic island that was swiped off all life by an eruption, scientists have been introducing one species of lizards and they could almost "watch" as these animals changed in build and stature. Because on this island they found more grass than bushes (naturally after the eruption bushes had to grow again, which takes a while), their feet changed to better adapt to this environment. I forgot the exact island and species involved, it was in a scientific magazine some 3 or 4 years ago. Probably Science or Nature. And the research covered a period of approx. 10 years.  

Interesting reading on biogeography: David Quammen. 1997. The Song of the Dodo: Island Biogeography in an Age of Extinctions. Scribner. ISBN 0684827123

 Another thing I haven't mentioned yet is genetics: It is known today that there exist mechanisms that allow for rapid changes in the genome.  Mechanisms that can lead to multiple copies of a gene, some of which can later assume new functions, driven by further mutations that affect single nucleic acids, parts of the code or even crossing with another gene. Virus DNA is known to slumber inside our genome for ages. In many cases it is not fully functional any more. Similar structures called "transposons" that may stem from virii, can induce sudden repositioning of genes in the genome, even from one chromosome to another. Meiosis has the "crossover" feature that can dramatically recombine genomes if anything goes "wrong". Though this will often lead to fatal defects, in rare cases it may have neutral or positive outcome. Especially plants are better in this area than animals/humans. Around Chernobyl many highly mutated plants survive and may add to the gene pool where similarly mutated animals are simply dead or dying, not propagating.

 By the way: complexity must not always "develop": The symbiont theory regarding organelles (mitochondria, chloroplasts and other plastids), that is also widely accepted shows that increased complexity (and new features/capabilities) can come from cooperation. This theory states that mitochondria and plastids were originally autark bacteria that were either already endogenous symbionts or became symbionts instead of being eaten by our ancestor pre-eukaryote cell. The mitochondria-predecessor bacteria would have offered the capability to breathe oxygen and "burn" sugar to gain energy. -- Oxygen was usually bound in compounds originally and was only "freed" by the first photosynthetic organisms. Sadly, it was poisonous for most, if not all, organisms of that age, until those bacteria developed that could use up the oxygen and would emit carbondioxide -- thus closing the circuit.

 Anyway. These new "inhabitants" of pre-eukaryote cells would have gained comfortable rooming and food while the now eukaryote cell would have gained rapid fuel production (in the form of ATP, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate) and, in the case of "plants", efficient energy harvesting through photosynthesis. Over time, through mutations and gene transfer, mostly from the organelles to the nucleus of the cells, the former symbionts became just that: organelles, parts of the biochemical machinery of the eukaryote cells.

 Recently, microbiologists have worked on in-vitro evolution of bacteria, applying artificial environmental/evolutionary pressure to see how the bacteria react.

 These and many other experiments show that evolution is constantly at work and works mostly in the way that Darwin expected.

 Something else has been haunting evolutionists for decades: How do big and "sudden" changes like the development of wings from arms take place? But even these sort of "sudden" changes can be explained with recent discoveries:

 Feathered Dinosaurs of the Theropoda group had feathers (not fit for flying at first), were warm-blooded, bread their eggs.

 The development of horses from dog-sized forest dwellers (eating leaves) to today's horse-sized horses living in steppes and prairies is well documented through fossils.

 Another interesting example is the development of new migration directions in birds. Birds that used to migrate to South Europe in winter are now more and more migrating to the British islands. It started with few birds, but since they have a tendency to nest with fellow migrators and those migrating to the British islands have more and bigger eggs they are beginning to increase their percentage in the population. As a consequence, these birds show how evolution can quickly favour new properties in a bird. Migration and even it's direction are genetically programmed -- at least in parts. In this case those birds who fly west instead of south have an advantage due to the climate changes. This is evolution caught in the act! And it is FAST!

 Also, developmental biology ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_biology ) has shown how minute changes can induce the development of structures -- or, if they fail, something completely different. Thus the result of a genetic change (mutation) may often lead to fatal development, but in few cases to something better than before.

 While the shape and structure of a limb, a wing, a beak, may be fixated in genes that code for development, the quantity of a "steering" substance that is produced may decide how big something grows or if it has a different colour pattern on it. Through these amplifying mechanisms that rely heavily on crossing gradients of certain messangers small initial changes can lead to big changes in the outcome. Another explanation of how big changes can be achieved quickly in evolutionary scales.

 Now, these "Intelligent Design" proponents claim there is no such thing as evolution. Even though it can be observed (!) today.

 And even if they admit that adaptions take place, they claim that evolution cannot explain complex structures (brains, wings, whatever). What kind of an argument is this? Because THEY cannot imagine that evolutionary mechanisms suffice to achieve the properties and capabilities of species today, it is not possible?

 This is my main criticism of ID: They do NOT dispute in a scientific way. They do NOT "prove" anything they say. They do not offer a counter-hypothesis that could be validated or falsified.

 To sum it up: neither Creationism nor Intelligent Design present a "theory". Not even a testable hypothesis. Yet, they simply state Evolution is an unproven theory. To me this looks like playing with loaded dice.

 My impression is:

* they do not want evolution to be

* they do either not know about recent findings (or any important findings) in evolution research -- or they don't want to know

* they decry evolution using the fact that "theory" in colloquial language is something unsure and unproven.

 They fail to tell their audience that evolution is not "only a theory", but it is a strongly tested theory that has prevailed over 150 years, even though it has had strong opponents from the start.

 And in natural sciences a theory is the strongest thing you can have (unlike in mathematics, where you have a proof or you don't). In natural sciences you CANNOT prove, you can only just test a hypothesis. If a hypothesis has withstood all the tests it can reasonably be assumed a valid theory. If one test can falsify a hypothesis (or later the theory) the theory is refuted. Fine.

 ID people do not even TRY to actually refute evolution (probably because they know it is highly improbably they would succeed). They just CLAIM it is unproven (which may verbally be true, since there IS NO proof in natural sciences, but is otherwise nonsense).

There is this "challenge" that ID guy Behe has drafted, where he asks evolution advocates to show that bacteria develop a flagellum (or a similarly complex structure) in vitro when put under environmental strain). He must know this is utter nonsense: Evolution CANNOT predict HOW a population or species will react to environmental pressure. No evolutionist ever claimed that. Evolution theory never tried to predict such a thing. Evolution is a stochastic process.

 For example, the giraffe did NOT develop a long neck because it wanted to reach the higher leaves. It was just that giraffe-ancestors with longer necks accidentally had an advantage over their relatives with shorter necks when there was a higher competition over the grasses and shrubs and not so much competition over the leaves higher up that only they could reach.

 Evolution doesn't drive development of features in the way you drive a car. This is a common misunderstanding among lay people. What happens is that pre-existing properties that change stochastically are filtered according to the environmental requirements to a species. As a result the average individual of a species will over time change in properties. The average size of the individuals may increase or decrease. The beak may change in shape (Darwin finches), the body shape may change to liken a torpedo (seals, whales, dolphins).

 In many cases molecular biology could confirm evolutionary proceedings and genetic relationship.

 Also, mathematical methods can explain why things work out or not. For example, it is not necessary that two populations are 100% separated from each other. Even when there is a certain "gene flow" between both populations, the populations can become distinct species up to the point when mixing is not possible any more.

 Also, a new "fitter" feature does not need to be very much better than the previous "standard" version. It is enough, if the fitness of individuals with this new feature leads to 0.1% more offspring. Even then, after a dozen generations or so the new feature will have pervaded the population.

Mike:  Let's face it, it could be that we are all the product of some higher being's elaborate experiment.

Andreas:  Okay. So many examples I have lost the string of thought. Back to the topic: Does that mean I think a hypothesis of some hyper-intelligent being having designed the universe, this planet, us, is utter nonsense?

 Not necessarily. This thought has been phrased many times. And as a -- philosophic -- thought experiment it is actually quite a nice thing. What, IF we were all part of some setup? Some sort of lab experiment or simulation game? What would the "universe" of virtual organisms in human computers look like to it's virtually intelligent inhabitants look like? Would they be suspicious about some intelligent being having designed their universe? I think that unless the "designer" decides to communicate the "inhabitants" cannot know! So, even if the ID people had a case they could never show, probably.

 On the other hand: do you think -- or does anybody think, that a hyper-intelligent being would actually sit down and mold everything "manually" from sub-atom particles over atoms, molecules, suns, planets, galaxies and then, one by one, organisms from bacteria over monads up to primates and man? Wouldn't it be more intelligent and just setup the rules, start the thing and watch? ;-)

 Do you know Douglas Adams and his "Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy"? He plays with these ideas. A lot. It's fun. But it has a philosophical side, too.

Mike:  Secondly, Darwinism evolutionary theory has merits but doesn't tell the whole story,  A bit like Freudian psychology.

Andreas:  No very unlike Freud. Darwin's theories have are still valid theories. Even some details he wasn't sure about have been shown to be correct. And many things that were puzzling at his times can now be explained through stochastic processes, statistics and evolutionary genetics.

 Mike:  Both are the grandfathers of their fields but were only touching the tip of the iceberg.

Andreas:  There is a difference. Even though Darwin did not know about genes, DNA and stuff, he understood basic patterns of inheritance and evolutionary development.

 Mike: Natural selection has been expanded on to include other elements like sexual selection.  You might be aware that Darwin found the Peacock quite sickening.  How would those enormous tail feathers possibly help it to be more agile in escaping from predators?  That's where sex comes in.

Andreas:  This is a very good example. For one thing, because it shows that "fittest" doesn't refer to physically biggest, fastest, whatever. Here is an example that a feature that may increase the risk for the male bird of ending as a predator's breakfast may still be an evolutionary advantage because it highly increases sexual success with female birds of the species.

 There is even a funny example that shows how this can be exploited: there is a viviparous "Amazon" fish (of the Poeciliidae family, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poeciliidae ), a close relative of guppy and platy of which there exist ONLY FEMALES. They have sex with males of a different species, but there is no fertilisation of the eggs, they are just "started". This is called Parthenogenesis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis ), or, in this specific case, Gynogenesis (a subtype of Parthenogenesis). The funny and relevant thing here is: the males of the other species PREFER the Amazons to their own females because the Amazons have developed features and movements more attractive than those of the males' species.

Mike: So yes the ID proponents are getting better and wiser for leaving the traditional theism behind.

Andreas:  I would call it a trick. ;-) They even replaces "creationism" with "intelligent design" in a book, IIRC.

 Mike:  Let's face it, Biblical traditional theism only weighs down serious theists.

Andreas:  This and the fact that American law prohibits religious teaching in public schools would have been the reason for ID proponents to change their strategy and arguments.

Mike:  A good example is on my Jesus page, talking about an alleged forty days without food. One Christian said to me, "well he could have gone for as long as he liked without food".

Andreas:  Such people give me the willies ...

 When will THEY go extinct? ;-)

Mike:  Any fair thinker will give the theist a good hearing and test their arguments with the core elements of classic science refutability and replicability.

Andreas:  This is exactly it: where is their hypothesis? Where is the scientific refutability in it?

 Actually, while writing this lengthy stuff I got the idea we should write a book on this ... it is biological, it is religious. How about a synthesis/cooperation? ;-)

 What I am thinking about, is something to a) give laymen an idea of what is REALLY going on when ID people do their PR/propaganda dance and b) provide scientists with a string of arguments to refute that ID nonsense (for in the way the ID guys put it, it really IS nonsense, notwithstanding the philosophical thought experiment thingy).

 That's it for today. You're through. Thanks for reading it all.

 Kind regards

 Andreas