Re: [asa] Parameterized Evolution

On Aug 23, 2008, at 8:29 AM, Dave Wallace wrote:

> http://www.uncommondescent.com/biology/thoughts-on-parameterized-vs-open-ended-evolution-and-the-production-of-variability/
>
> I found this post on UcD somewhat interesting however, I have only a
> vague idea as to what Parameterized Evolution is. Can anyone point
> to a simple definition. As best I can tell it involves a
> predetermination/limitation of biological evolutionary search space.
> Dave W (ASA member)

> The reason why engineers are more prone to recognize this is because
> engineers have to develop systems repeatedly, and know how much
> trouble it is to get parts to play well together. Adjusting the
> system requires adjusting multiple parts simultaneously, which can’t
> be accomplished without a guiding information system (which, in ID
> circles, is termed front-loaded evolution - which requires the
> action of an intelligent agent at the beginning) or the creativity
> and intervention of an intelligent agent at each step.

This is such utter B.S. Speaking as an engineer, they don't have a
clue on how it works. If you change everything simultaneously you get
chaos. Rather, you make small revisions to working designs. This is
why companies try to be first to the market because once they have the
working design the competition cannot catch up. This is because they
don't have the intellectual property to evolve from. One option of
course is to buy the technology which is analogous to cooption in
evolutionary theory.

  This is so choice and shows it is the ID folk that do not understand
variation. Nor as we can see above do they understand front-loaded
evolution. The arrogance of it all can best be summed up from a review
of the Edge of Evolution done by Steve Matheson:

> Behe has excused himself from the company of those who seriously
> study evolutionary science, and has done this by approaching the
> complex and fascinating analysis of evolutionary genetics with a
> malignant combination of arrogant condescension and pitiful
> ignorance. (Or, alternatively, his integrity has been somehow
> compromised.) You see, it actually doesn't matter how you couch your
> words when the message to an entire field of science (about which
> you know relatively little) is: "Hey, guys, give it up; I just
> figgered the whole thing out." In fact, in my opinion, there's
> something pretty creepy about a bland smile on the face of an
> undistinguished biochemist who claims to have overturned a century
> of work by some of the best minds in the history of biology.

...

> Behe's hypothesis, that random mutation cannot drive evolutionary
> change, is a scientific hypothesis of significant import that should
> have been carefully constructed and vetted by the professional
> scientific community. But as near as I can tell, the claim was never
> subjected to peer review. As far as I know, Behe has not completely
> formulated his hypothesis (by, for example, analyzing actual
> measurements of genetic variation in living organisms), [RDB Note:
> neither was this done in the blog entry referenced by Dave. There's
> no discussion how chemicals and radiation cause variation or SNPs or
> CNVs or anything like that.] and has not attempted to publish it in
> the professional literature or even to present it to a gathering of
> scientific experts. Instead, he wrote a popular book, aimed at a lay
> audience. His ideas are, in fact, almost completely without merit,
> but even if his radical hypothesis were worthy of scientific
> consideration, his choice to abandon the scientific community – and
> to eschew even the most basic review of his proposals by known
> experts – is an expression of arrogance and contempt that is
> difficult to overstate.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Aug 23 12:18:43 2008