Unintelligent Design More Robust Than Intelligent Design

[chriscase]

Some time ago, I saw part of a presentation made by a researcher at the University of Washington. The research had used a neural network and some modelling of DNA sequences to investigate how stable some bits of genetic material would be under some sort of action. (I think the action of the neural net was simulating recombination of the genes, but I'm not sure.)

Has anyone else here heard of this research? I keep looking for more about it, but without success.

The fascinating thing about the study was the result. It seems that very rudimentary pieces of DNA combine to make surprisingly stable sequences. The conclusion is that the natural process of "unintelligent design" is significantly more stable than the "intelligence" and complexity of design we put into something like a transistor radio. The "miracle of life" is very likely to have been accomplished by extremely simple-minded molecules interacting with each other.

To me, this turns the standard Creationist argument on its head. If complexity were truly the mark of a Creator, the world would almost certainly be barren.

[Simetrical]

That's a kind of silly argument. What it shows is that natural selection was more robust (in some particular way) than the narrow and stupid artificial selection we're capable of at present. It says nothing about our ability in the future, or by extension the ability of other possible (corporeal, non-omnipotent) intelligent designers. I would expect our own capabilities will eventually exceed that of natural selection in all ways, although who knows.

It's definitely ridiculous as an argument against divine design: the idea that any process to achieve any end whatsoever could achieve better results than an omnipotent and omniscient being, should such a being exist, is patent nonsense. By definition an omnipotent being can do anything it desires, which would include creating structures as robust as are physically possible, if not more so. Any lack of robustness would have to be intentional (for whatever reason).

[chriscase]

That's a kind of silly argument. What it shows is that natural selection was more robust (in some particular way) than the narrow and stupid artificial selection we're capable of at present. It says nothing about our ability in the future, or by extension the ability of other possible (corporeal, non-omnipotent) intelligent designers. I would expect our own capabilities will eventually exceed that of natural selection in all ways, although who knows.

As I understand it, the experiment itself was not about natural selection at all, but something more fundamental. If I could find the documentation from that project, I might be able to discuss it more specifically. Part of my intention in posting was to see if anybody here had seen it.

It's definitely ridiculous as an argument against divine design: the idea that any process to achieve any end whatsoever could achieve better results than an omnipotent and omniscient being, should such a being exist, is patent nonsense. By definition an omnipotent being can do anything it desires, which would include creating structures as robust as are physically possible, if not more so. Any lack of robustness would have to be intentional (for whatever reason).

I was not making an argument against Creationism as a whole, but rather suggesting a rebuttal against one Creationist argument: that the complexity of nature is evidence of Divine Creation. However, since I have freely admitted I need more information about the research that might support this argument, I am happy to concede that I cannot defend it properly at this time.

[Simetrical]

I was not making an argument against Creationism as a whole, but rather suggesting a rebuttal against one Creationist argument: that the complexity of nature is evidence of Divine Creation.

Your ending statement that "If complexity were truly the mark of a Creator, the world would almost certainly be barren" seemed to take the argument further than it merited, however. Certainly the response to that Creationist argument has always been that there's no reason to think natural selection can't produce extraordinary complexity.

[chriscase]

Your ending statement that "If complexity were truly the mark of a Creator, the world would almost certainly be barren" seemed to take the argument further than it merited, however.

An overstatement? Ok, guess I got a little carried away there. I really want to find that study.

Certainly the response to that Creationist argument has always been that there's no reason to think natural selection can't produce extraordinary complexity.

As I understand it, natural selection produces no complexity whatsoever - it merely promotes the survival of successful traits. The genetic diversity that natural selection acts on is not produced by it. That is part of what this study was trying to figure out.

[Simetrical]

Well, that seems to be nitpicking over the definition of "produce".

[chriscase]

Well, that seems to be nitpicking over the definition of "produce".

Perhaps you can give a charitable definition of natural selection that includes an explanation of how the genetic traits themselves come into existence. If such a definition is reasonably close to a standard definition, then we'll call my objection a nit.

[Simetrical]

Natural selection is the promotion of traits conducive to reproduction in the presence of descent with modification. The reason that organisms today are complex is because of a process of natural selection in which selection pressures favored complexity. In this sense it seems perfectly reasonable to say that natural selection produced the complexity. Of course, there were other necessary factors as well, including the prerequisites for natural selection (descent with modification) and also the fact that selection pressures favored complexity, but it's perfectly common and proper to call partial causes "causes" without qualification. (Although I didn't use the word cause, produce follows the same logic.)

[chriscase]

Natural selection is the promotion of traits conducive to reproduction in the presence of descent with modification.

Is this the definition you are proposing? Is "descent with modification" part of it or a presupposition? It looks like a presupposition to me.

The reason that organisms today are complex is because of a process of natural selection in which selection pressures favored complexity. In this sense it seems perfectly reasonable to say that natural selection produced the complexity. Of course, there were other necessary factors as well, including the prerequisites for natural selection (descent with modification) and also the fact that selection pressures favored complexity, but it's perfectly common and proper to call partial causes "causes" without qualification. (Although I didn't use the word cause, produce follows the same logic.)

So your argument is:
1) Natural selection produced all characteristics of life.
2) Complexity is a characteristic of life.
3) Therefore natural selection produced complexity.

Maybe part of the problem here is that we do not agree on the meaning of "complexity". I have borrowed the term in its imprecise, general meaning - the diversity of life. Your argument may hold for a particular trait that might be both complex and successful, but that is incidental. Complexity does not guarantee success. Yet this argument you make does not address the general question of where the genetic diversity came from in the first place. To argue that genetic diversity was produced or caused by a process that requires genetic diversity in the first place is patently circular.

[Problem Sleuth]

Maybe part of the problem here is that we do not agree on the meaning of "complexity". I have borrowed the term in its imprecise, general meaning - the diversity of life. Your argument may hold for a particular trait that might be both complex and successful, but that is incidental. Complexity does not guarantee success. Yet this argument you make does not address the general question of where the genetic diversity came from in the first place. To argue that genetic diversity was produced or caused by a process that requires genetic diversity in the first place is patently circular.

Not here to really get involved, but I just had to say... There's a reason we have single-celled organisms. Viruses are incredibly simple organisms. They're information with some protection, a drill, and an engine slapped on. Unbelievably basic when compared to humans, which are composed of trillions of cells (each of which is more complex than a virus), which work together to form an incredibly strong "hive mind" of cells.

Complexity does not guarantee success - hence why the common cold is such a common sickness. However, it often means greater chances of success. A herd of gazelle vs one in the open, a school of fish vs having them scattered all over is what multi-celled vs single-celled amounts to. Some go at it alone and that works best, others require groups.

[Simetrical]

Is this the definition you are proposing? Is "descent with modification" part of it or a presupposition? It looks like a presupposition to me.

Well, it's a necessary one. Descent with modifications that affect probability of descent is necessary and sufficient for natural selection.

So your argument is:
1) Natural selection produced all characteristics of life.
2) Complexity is a characteristic of life.
3) Therefore natural selection produced complexity.

A straightforward syllogism, yes.

Maybe part of the problem here is that we do not agree on the meaning of "complexity". I have borrowed the term in its imprecise, general meaning - the diversity of life.

It works for that.

Your argument may hold for a particular trait that might be both complex and successful, but that is incidental. Complexity does not guarantee success.

I never said that natural selection was a total cause. It's a partial one: it can produce complexity. And in Earth life it has*― viruses not excluded. Replication of DNA is complex by itself.

Yet this argument you make does not address the general question of where the genetic diversity came from in the first place. To argue that genetic diversity was produced or caused by a process that requires genetic diversity in the first place is patently circular.

To say that natural selection produces something does not imply that its prerequisites did not need to be present. Quite to the contrary. In the case of living organisms, the "modification" part of descent with modification is due mainly to mutations in DNA. Those, therefore, also had a role in the development of complexity. So did everything else necessary for life to exist. But none of the other things is sufficient to produce complexity, without natural selection. Genetic mutations that don't give rise to selection pressures will cause genetic drift, not complexity, or change of any kind.

It's not like the idea of natural selection producing complexity is novel or unique to me or anything. Just look at the book The Evolution of Complexity by Means of Natural Selection, say. Or this quote from Richard Dawkins, which cites natural selection as an explanation for complexity:

Darwin raises our consciousness to the sinewy power of science to explain the large and complex in terms of the small and simple. In biology we were fooled for centuries into thinking that extravagant complexity in nature needs an extravagantly complex explanation. Darwin triumphantly dispelled that delusion.

Etc. The idea of causation is notoriously fuzzy, anyway. I've never seen any scientific definition of it, or even a reasonably precise one (although I hope the latter at least exists).

[chriscase]

I never said that natural selection was a total cause.

Alright then.

So when you said, "Certainly the response to that Creationist argument has always been that there's no reason to think natural selection can't produce extraordinary complexity," did you really mean, "Certainly the response to that Creationist argument has always been that there's no reason to think evolution can't produce extraordinary complexity"?

I do notice that Dawkins uses "natural selection" interchangably with "evolution" in his articles sometimes.

Speaking of which, there seem to have been a number of non-evolutionary counter-arguments over the years, including Hume's. It might be a bit of an overstatement to say that evolution has always been the response to the teleological argument, don't you think? Even Dawkins makes logical arguments (which he attributes to Hume) against the teleological argument in addition to raising evolution as a superior explanation.

The real reason I was trying to point out that natural selection by itself cannot account for life is that this study I am looking for seemed to be trying to answer some questions as to how genetic information came into existence in the first place. So I believe, after doing some more reading, that it must belong more to the field of abiogenesis than evolution.

I apologize for all the imprecision in my attempts to paraphrase this source I am looking for. My general impression here is we spoke at cross purposes for most of this conversation, and I'm sure the fault is mine.

[Simetrical]

So when you said, "Certainly the response to that Creationist argument has always been that there's no reason to think natural selection can't produce extraordinary complexity," did you really mean, "Certainly the response to that Creationist argument has always been that there's no reason to think evolution can't produce extraordinary complexity"?

I do notice that Dawkins uses "natural selection" interchangably with "evolution" in his articles sometimes.

Evolution is a much vaguer concept than natural selection. Of course evolution can produce extraordinary complexity, because any gradual change is evolution, and any finite amount of complexity can conceivably arise through gradual change. It's natural selection specifically whose capacities are questioned.

Speaking of which, there seem to have been a number of non-evolutionary counter-arguments over the years, including Hume's. It might be a bit of an overstatement to say that evolution has always been the response to the teleological argument, don't you think? Even Dawkins makes logical arguments (which he attributes to Hume) against the teleological argument in addition to raising evolution as a superior explanation.

I think you understood my general point, careless wording on my part aside.

The real reason I was trying to point out that natural selection by itself cannot account for life is that this study I am looking for seemed to be trying to answer some questions as to how genetic information came into existence in the first place. So I believe, after doing some more reading, that it must belong more to the field of abiogenesis than evolution.

Not necessarily. It depends on what exactly it's looking for. DNA in particular probably came into being from some other substance, maybe RNA, that was already part of living organisms. RNA is likely too complicated to have arisen spontaneously as well, and it seems likely that it arose from some still simpler material, that was nevertheless part of a biological process. So the rise of today's genetic material is probably a question of evolution, not abiogenesis, although rather more dramatic evolution than we commonly see. If the question is the rise of genetic material to begin with, then of course that's abiogenesis.

I apologize for all the imprecision in my attempts to paraphrase this source I am looking for. My general impression here is we spoke at cross purposes for most of this conversation, and I'm sure the fault is mine.

Well, I can agree with the part about speaking at cross purposes.

[Simetrical]

Of course.