…and this is a 
Egnor responds, falls flat on his face
Category: Creationism
Posted on: February 24, 2007 10:38 AM, by PZ Myers
The other day, the Time magazine blog strongly criticized the DI's list of irrelevant, unqualified scientists who "dissent from Darwin", and singled out a surgeon, Michael Egnor, as an example of the foolishness of the people who support the DI. I took apart some of Egnor's claims, that evolutionary processes can't generate new information. In particular, I showed that there are lots of publications that show new information emerging in organisms.
Egnor replied in a comment. He's still completely wrong. The Discovery Institute has posted his vapid comment, too, as if it says something, so let's briefly show where he has gone wrong.
In addition to showing that PubMed lists over 2800 papers relevant to his question, I singled out one: an analysis that showed that insecticide resistance in mosquitos was generated by a mutation of an acetylcholinesterase gene, and that they also had a duplication of the gene—this is a classic example of how to generate new information. Duplicate one gene into two, and subsequent mutations in one copy can introduce useful variants, such as resistance to insecticide, while the original function is still left intact in the other copy.
Egnor foolishly rejects this, claiming it does not address his challenge, with a shift of the goalposts that he doesn't seem to realize still leaves me scoring.
So what's the threshold, quantitatively? It seems to be a threshold of information generating capability. But the information in living things is specified; it does things, specific things. In that sense, it differs completely from Shannon information, which is a measure of randomness and the extent to which a message can be compressed. Shannon information is not relevant to biological information.
Notice the sneaky move. He's going to demand a quantitative measure of an information increase, but at the same time, he's going to argue that mathematical measures of information, such as Shannon information, can't be used. He's saying "Give me a number, but you aren't allowed to use any procedures that produce a number"—heads he wins, tails I lose.
Unfortunately for Egnor, I didn't say anything about Shannon information; a gene duplication itself represents an increase in Shannon information, of course, but that wasn't my point. I gave him an example of a change in genetic information of a specific organism that "does things, specific things"! The mosquitos have a new property, pesticide resistance, and they achieved it by adding a new gene, a copy of an old one with significant changes. It answered his demands, both the old one on the Time blog and the new one in his comment, perfectly.
His other tactic was to claim that my search of PubMed as invalid and didn't meet his requirements.
Regarding your PubMed literature search, I must not have used the words 'Information', 'Measurement, and 'Random' often enough in my discussion with Mike Lemonick, and you thought I said 'gene' 'duplication' and 'evolution'. I understand; we all make mistakes. If you actually want to answer my question, type 'information', and (not 'or'!) 'measurement', and 'random', and the name of the species in which you wish to look for experimental measurement of information generation by random processes.
I did a PubMed search just now. I searched for 'measurement', and 'information' and 'random' and 'e coli'. There were only three articles, none of which have any bearing on my question. The first article, by Bettelheim et al, was entitled 'The diversity of Escherichia coli serotypes and biotypes in cattle faeces'.
Anybody who uses a database search function knows that there is a skill to defining search terms; you're going to be frustrated if you use the terms that you think everyone should be using, rather than the terms that they actually use. It's an astonishing bit of hubris that Egnor can design an incompetent search that by his own admission fails to turn up any relevant articles, and he thinks that is superior to my search, based on knowledge of terms that relevant researchers in evolutionary biology would use, that turned up over 2800 good articles. The real test is to look at the articles you get, and see if they answer your question; Egnor did not do that. My search turned up articles describing mechanisms of evolution of new proteins and whole new clades by genetic and molecular processes; he apparently prefers to close his eyes to that and instead tailor a search that excludes anything that might conflict with his preconceptions.
Nick Matzke has also thrown in his two cents on that thread, and it's a good reply so I'll promote it here.
Michael Egnor, despite being cited fawningly yet again on the DI blog, has yet to respond to my simple answer to his silly question about the origin of new genetic information.
Here's my answer again:
The Discovery Institute blog just linked to this thread, so I am just now coming to it.
Regarding Egnor's question about the ability of random mutation and natural selection to produce new genetic information --
Michael Egnor is just ignorantly repeating some of the dumbest lines from the ID propaganda manual. This paper explains the origin of new genetic information, reviewing 20+ examples where the origin of new genes with new functions has been reconstructed in detail:
Long M, Betran E, Thornton K, Wang W. (2003). The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old. Nature Reviews Genetics. 4(11):865-75.
The paper is free online in various places -- as is Manyuan Long's vita, which contains dozens of papers specifically on this topic.
Egnor has probably never read this paper or any similar work, which is why he has such a beknighted view of the relevant science. Dr. Egnor: admit you were wrong on your very first argument, and that the headquarters of the ID movement, the Discovery Institute, was also wrong in praising your argument here, and let's start this discussion over.
(PS: Regarding gene duplication -- sure, an exact duplicate isn't "new" information. But after duplication -- sit down for this shocker -- mutation and selection can change a copy. Now you have two genes with divergent sequences and different functions. This is new information in anyone's book.
As for a "limit" -- why should anyone think there is any particular limit to the amount of information this process can generate? If evolution can generate three new genes (known as of 2003) in the Drosophila melanogaster genome in 3 million years (see Long et al. 2003, Table 2), it can obviously do much more with millions of species and billions of years. Any arbitrary line can be crossed by saying "add one more new gene". Game over, man.)
(PPS: Dr. Egnor, did you ever work on animal models in any of your training or research as a neurosurgeon? Just why do you think humans share so many anatomical details with other animals, anyway?)
Egnor is not only wrong, but he's pretty damn arrogant about it—how else to explain someone who is proud of the fact that he knows nothing about a subject, and is proud of his inability to find sources that would correct his ignorance, even when they're pointed out to him directly? He's like Michael Behe, in that we can plop mountains of information in front of him, and he'll just blithely claim it doesn't exist.
The saga continues with another rebuttal.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
You're asking him to look at the PubMed reality. He prefers the Egnor Reality. Of course he's upset.
Posted by: llewelly | February 24, 2007 10:51 AM
It should always be pointed out in the same stroke as these duplication examples that most genes in our genomes are duplicates, splices, or shuffles of some other genes in the genome. It's just too bad if people like Egnor think that a duplicate gene is not an example of new information. It's totally irrelevant what they think, since in order to explain the genetic diversity of organisms, duplication events are implied.
Posted by: Martin Brazeau | February 24, 2007 10:58 AM
A brilliant example of why I spend so much time here! PZ's discussion of Egnor's foolishness is trenchant, amusing, a good read, but there's more than shits and giggles here. There are citations, there is evidence. In particular, I spent a happy half hour at the Long lab site mentioned by Nick Matzke and ended up downloading half-a-dozen articles on the production of novel genes for my collection.
I am, to put it mildly, enthused....SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | February 24, 2007 11:02 AM
...
...
I wonder if there's a list somewhere of evolution-denying medical doctors?
I'd sure be inclined to NEVER go to one.
Given a choice of a competent, science-based physician and one who thought his faith would back him up if he made a mistake, or that my death on the operating table was "God's will" and no big deal ... I'd pick the first guy.
...
...
Posted by: Hank Fox | February 24, 2007 11:10 AM
PZ, can you link to this post from PT as well.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | February 24, 2007 11:11 AM
I suspect a survey would show that surgeons who believe in god are outnumbered by those who believe that they are god.
Posted by: Ken Cope | February 24, 2007 11:23 AM
Nick writes:
"PS: Regarding gene duplication -- sure, an exact duplicate isn't "new" information. But after duplication --sit down for this shocker -- mutation and selection can change a copy. Now you have two genes with divergent sequences and different functions. This is new information in anyone's book."
Nick, before the gene duplicated, where did the information in that original gene come from? Keep following that question back through time...
Posted by: Forthekids | February 24, 2007 11:23 AM
Sigh. Ignorance rules.
Gene trees (globins across the whole kingdom, amylase with in the Drosophilidae, just to take two examples) are a perfect examples of change of information across species. On the same token, we have identified the specific genes and the mechanism how some species have speciated.
Posted by: Kim van der Linde | February 24, 2007 11:24 AM
Yeah, maybe it's time to order me up one of those Doctor Doom-style metal masks to hide my face in shame for my profession.
Of course, Dr. Egnor is a Professor of Neurosurgery; so it's inconceivable that he wouldn't know what he's talking about...
Posted by: Orac | February 24, 2007 11:29 AM
Sadly, there is. You haven't heard of Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity, have you?
Posted by: Orac | February 24, 2007 11:30 AM
The paper you picked reminds of the DDT ban myth. (Though I don't think Culex pipens carries malaria, and I can't tell if the gene duplication in the paper affects DDT resistance.) The DDT ban myth promoters, in addition to promoting a false history of DDT regulation, also promote the belief that disease bearing insects do not evolve resistance to DDT - a kind of anti-evolution position.
Posted by: llewelly | February 24, 2007 11:31 AM
Dr Egnor unfortunately is the bad example of the physician in the world. I'm a neurosurgeon (a difficult feat that requires dedication, intelligence, and ferocity of purpose), but this type of doctor, instead of recognizing the intense study required for even his own specialization, suddenly and mistakenly thinks he knows everything about everything and can make pronouncements about any topic as gospel. As Dr Egnor would not take Dr Stephen Hawking's pronouncements on what neurosurgical procedures Dr Egnor should and should not perform, even though we all believe Dr Hawking is a dedicated highly intelligent physicist, he misses the needle in his own eye, arguing that he, Dr Egnor, has authority to make anti-evolutionary pronouncements even though he has no credentials to do so. The problem with playing god Dr Egnor, is that eventually people question your credentiaals to make god-like pronouncements and stop believing in your magical thinking.
Posted by: bones | February 24, 2007 11:32 AM
Hank Fox sez:
So, I sez:
Really, I am not sure if it makes a difference. I'll qualify that by saying it depends on the related illness, but if you think about it doctors are not expected to be scientists in order to practice it. Yes, they should know about it well enough to be able to find a treatment option and be able to understand the relevant literature, but ultimately they are practitioners of the science as discovered by scientists.
So, I don't know if I care whether my doctor is a creationist or not as long as she can set my broken bones.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | February 24, 2007 11:33 AM
I picture this guy as a high-achieving Addams family member stalking around anOR suite with a huge, stolid grin and a piercing, witless stare, stereotactically self-positioned electrodes sticking out of his misshapen head, which is oozing a mixture of blood, air, and shit. Am I being unfair?
I seem to imagine most educated yet religiously burdened people in a similar fashion. Guess that's my own bias. Oh well, he's a fucking freak. Thanks for exposing him again.
Posted by: Ira Fews | February 24, 2007 11:38 AM
Unfortunately, surgeons seem to be particularly susceptible to this delusion. (I'm a surgical oncologist, by the way.) I think it has something to do with being given the unique privilege by society to do what no other person is permitted to do: To cut into living humans and rearrange their anatomy, hopefully for therapeutic effect.
Posted by: Orac | February 24, 2007 11:41 AM
Also, people who don't have delusions of immense competency likely wouldn't be able to cut into brains without being overwhelmed by the understanding of what even their best efforts are inflicting upon people.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 24, 2007 11:46 AM
Sure, physicians going off on biology is not so good, but at least they typically took some biology classes as undergrads. Dr. Egnor keeps bringing up information theory as if he knows something about it. A word to the wise: if you're going to talk about information theory, don't demand a measurement of "specified information" which is a quantity that appears to exist entirely in William Dembski's imagination.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | February 24, 2007 11:48 AM
Polyploidy represents a surge of new information, so how would Egnor handwave that away?
Posted by: Roy | February 24, 2007 11:52 AM
Obviously, this subject is far beyond me, but even from my humble, uninformed perspective, it seems that the folks at the DI are trying to create some sort of bizarre version of the scientific method where nothing can possibly be tested or peer reviewed.
It seems that using their methodology, I could say that a bratwurst can drive a truck, and anything you say which may disprove this hypothesis of mine, regardless of how much testing and review it's undergone, simply doesn't matter. I still think a bratwurst can drive, and you're not going to change my mind.
Am I right on that?
Posted by: Dan | February 24, 2007 12:10 PM
I figure if Dr Egnor is stupid enough not to realize that there are two "e coli"'s of importance to humans (Entamoeba coli the amoeba, and Escheria coli, the bacterium), he's stupid enough to handwave polyploidy as though it were an inconsequential fly in his ointment.
Posted by: Stanton | February 24, 2007 12:15 PM
The reply from bones above says exactly what needs to be said, and is the most obvious explanation for why ID/creationists insist on flapping their gums about something they are utterly unqualified to speak intelligently on.
For all you creationists out there, if your REALLY intend on understanding evolution and evolutionary biology, go get a degree in the subject, and then come back here. Or at the extreme least, PAY ATTENTION AND READ THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.
There is this pervasive stupidity that just asking the question is somehow forging a path toward destroying certain hypotheses and conclusions. Only a colossal fool asks a seemingly important question, and then walks away from the answer he is supposedly seeking when it is staring him in the face.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 24, 2007 12:44 PM
Dan,
You would be absolutely correct. That is indeed their goal. They have arrogantly decided that the scientific process, which has developed and matured over centuries to what it is now, has - overnight - become useless and obsolete.
Their questions aimed at disproving evolution and looking for any opportunity to insert their random hypotheses are nothing more than scholarly-worded mumblings from people disinterested in learning.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 24, 2007 12:48 PM
I'm reminded of a childhood elephant joke:
It's that last part that reminds me of the DI.
The assumption that there are elephants hiding in jellybean jars is unquestioned. The fact that this has never been observed is taken as proof of the effectiveness of their skill.
Posted by: John Marley | February 24, 2007 12:58 PM
FTK wrote: Nick, before the gene duplicated, where did the information in that original gene come from? Keep following that question back through time...
Still struggling with the basics eh FTK? Evolution and abiogenesis are different topics. Learn it, live it, love it.
BTW, the answer to your question is "I don't know", and that goes for everyone, including you. That's the big difference between scientists and IDers/creationists. Scientists admit when they don't know the answer to a question, and see it as a fertile area for research. The IDers/creationists make shit up (like the unnamed designer), then deny any interest or intellectual duty to test their hypothesis.
Posted by: MarkP | February 24, 2007 1:01 PM
I really wouldn't care if my surgeon was a creationist or not. It's no secret that most physicians (even the really good ones) make lousy scientists (full disclosure, I'm a PhD scientist at a medical school). I think that it's at least partly due to how they're educated, and partly due to how they're selected. Physicians are trained largely by memorizing insane numbers of facts given to them by an authority figure. Scientists are trained how to challenge that authority, and to demand logical proof at every stage. And medical students are chosen among the undergrads who are able to cram ridiculous numbers of facts into their heads.
That said, I think that the training physicians receive is exactly what they need. One of the best MD/PhDs that I know told me he had to forget major events from his childhood to fit all the facts from medical school into his head. Though the world could use a few more competent physician-scientists, the bulk of them needn't be competent scientists. The mistake is that some physicians consider themselves scientists when they're clearly not. Egnor seems to fall into this category. (I'm really not knocking physicians here, I think most of them are very good at what they do, and certainly I couldn't do it. And there are precious few people who can do both science and medicine well).
Posted by: factician | February 24, 2007 1:01 PM
There are all gradations of physicians, from those who did the very least possible to get past their Boards to those who excelled from a personal committment to excellence. There are those who are compassionate and caring and have entered the profession to help alleviate suffering; others do it because it is a good way to earn a buck and has loads of prestige.
It is hard to lump them altogether. However, I find it hard to believe any intelligent neurosurgeon could complete that much education and reject so much of it in his practice. One thing emerges; it appears it may be worthwhile for a malpractice attorney who is cross examining a neurosurgeon to explore, if possible, what he really believes about science.
Posted by: entlord | February 24, 2007 1:01 PM
:-)
Posted by: llewelly | February 24, 2007 1:05 PM
John Marley, that is indeed the DI reasoning in a hard, sugary coating. Too bad what's inside doesn't taste nearly as good as even cheap chocolate. A hilarious encapsulation of their "magic" thinking, thanks!
Posted by: wright | February 24, 2007 1:11 PM
Orac et al.,
Are there any efforts to get organizations of medical people to issue the kind of statements that the AAAS, National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society and so forth have issued to declare their understanding of evolution?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 24, 2007 1:12 PM
Nck Mtzk wrt:
"Mchl gnr s jst gnrntly rptng sm f th dmbst lns frm th D prpgnd mnl. Ths ppr xplns th rgn f nw gntc nfrmtn, rvwng 20+ xmpls whr th rgn f nw gns wth nw fnctns hs bn rcnstrctd n dtl:
Lng M, Btrn , Thrntn K, Wng W. (2003). Th rgn f nw gns: glmpss frm th yng nd ld. Ntr Rvws Gntcs. 4(11):865-75."
Nw ll Mr. Mtzk hs t d s dmnstrt tht ths chngs n th gnm r th rslt f rndm, ccdntl, nn-drctd, frtts mttns nd r nt th rslt f ntllgnt gdnc by strctrs nd prcsss lrdy prgrmmd nt th gntc mchnry by n ntllgnt dsgnr.
t hs lng bn my cntntn tht th gnm cn nt nly str nfrmtn, bt t cn crt nw nfrmtn s wll, s th nd rss. Ths, cmbnd wth th lmtlss ptntl f th prtn synthtc pprts, mks th cll nt nvrsl tmtn.
"Th prtn synthtc pprts cnnt nly rplct tslf bt, n ddtn, f gvn th crrct nfrmtn, t cn ls cnstrct ny bchmcl mchn, hwvr grt ts cmplxty, jst s lng s ts bsc fnctnl nts r cmprsd f prtns, whch bcs f th nr nfnt ss t whch thy cn b pt, gvs t lmst lmtlss ptntl." - Mchl Dntn
Posted by: Sugarbear | February 24, 2007 1:17 PM
I agree almost 100% with PZ and almost 0% with Michael Egnor.
The remaining epsilon% comes from this subtle point:
It is HARD to calculate the Shannon entropy of the output of the genetic algorithm. I have my own draft paper on the topic, over on the NCSI (New England Complex Systems Institute) wiki, which began as a long ant-ID thread on Good Math, Bad Math.
But also, see:
Schuermann, Thomas; Grassberger, Peter, "Entropy estimation of symbol sequences", CHAOS Vol. 6, No. 3 (1996) 414-427
http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0203436
We discuss algorithms for estimating the Shannon entropy h of finite symbol sequences with long range correlations. In particular, we consider algorithms which estimate h from the code lengths produced by some compression algorithm. Our interest is in describing their convergence with sequence length, assuming no limits for the space and time complexities of the compression algorithms. A scaling law is
proposed for extrapolation from finite sample lengths.
This is applied to sequences of dynamical systems in non-trivial chaotic regimes, a 1-D cellular automaton, and to written English texts.
Comment: 14 pages, 13 figures, 2 tables
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | February 24, 2007 1:23 PM
Ooh look - another mutation potentially adding new information. The original word, "benighted", meant overcome/overtaken by darkness - something like the opposite of enlightenment. The new version might mean beset by posers with fake qualifications, eg ID Creationists pretending to do science.
Posted by: SEF | February 24, 2007 1:28 PM
WRONG. Those natural, non-directed mechanisms have been repeatedly demonstrated in the lab -- they involve errors in the process of replication that are normal and to be expected. If someone wants to propose additional mechanisms, the onus is on them to demonstrate their reality. Have you got any evidence of any unusual intervention in any lineage on the planet? No? I'm not surprised. The IDists won't even hypothesize a mechanism.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 24, 2007 1:30 PM
As in, "You filzy English k-niggit with your filzy English be-k-niggeted views?"
A good many jargon terms seem to have originated as misspellings. Consider pr0n, or filk. . . words formed by accident and now carrying additional connotations or whole new meanings derived from but certainly not identical to their ancestral definitions.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 24, 2007 1:32 PM
Ken Cope wrote
My much-loved and now, alas, retired GP had a plaque on his desk (a gift from from his daughter) that said "M.D. does not stand for Minor Deity"!Posted by: RBH | February 24, 2007 1:45 PM
PZ wrt:
"Ths ntrl, nn-drctd mchnsms hv bn rptdly dmnstrtd n th lb - thy nvlv rrrs n th prcss f rplctn tht r nrml nd t b xpctd."
Mtzk cts ppr by Lng t.l. tht lsts th vrs srcs f nw gns. Thy ncld xn shfflng, gn dplctn, rtrpstn, trnspsbl lmnts, ltrl gn trnsfr, gn fsn/fssn nd cdng rgns rsng d nv frm nn-cdng rgns.
n lkng t ths vrs vnts t sms mr lkly t m tht thy r nt t ll rndm, ccdntl r nn-drctd. Fr xmpl, whn rtrpstn ccrs, t s th rslt f rvrs trnscrptn, nt sm rbtrry, ccdntl hppnstnc. Ds rtrpstn ccr ndpndntly f rvrs trnscrptn? thnk nt. n ddtn, trnspsbl lmnts r drctly rcrtd by hst gns, nt by ny ccdntl, rndm r nn-drctd frtts vnt.
thnk tht th prpndrnc f vdnc fvrs th ntn tht t lst sm f ths nw gns r bng crtd s drct rslt f prcsss tht r lrdy mbddd n th gnm nd r prt f th ntllgntly dsgnd mchnry n th cll.
Whl cnnt dmnstrt mprclly tht ths r ntllgntly gdd prcsss, nthr cn y dmnstrt tht thy r rndm, ccdntl r nn-drctd. Bt f s trs lnd p n n rchrd n rws f 20 trs ch, n prfct lgnmnt wht m mr lkly t cncld, tht thy wr th rslt f ntllgnt gdnc r rndm chnc?
Posted by: Sugarbear | February 24, 2007 2:02 PM
"Polyploidy represents a surge of new information, so how would Egnor handwave that away?"
If he believes that duplicating one gene is not the addition of new information, why should he believe that duplicating an entire chromosome full of genes is adding new information?
Clearly, if you are a materialstic/naturalistic/*istic Neeeeeo-Darwinist, you naively prefer material entitities like "experimental support for your assertations" and "peer-reviewed documentation" to your God-given right to say "it doesn't exist".
In my non Ph.D, non M.D. humble opinion, the guy is an asshat.
Posted by: FHS | February 24, 2007 2:05 PM
Sugarbear, you are extremely annoying. Either make your comments here or at Panda's Thumb, but NOT BOTH. I don't want to have to chase you hither and yon to make replies to the same thing twice. Got it? Do it again, and I will ban you from Pharyngula to force you to restrain yourself. To answer your question, though...
If you see trees scattered seemingly haphazardly in a grove, would you argue that they were placed in their positions by chance or by the hand of a designer?
We don't see everything "lined up...in perfect alignment". We see accidents and happenstance arrangements throughout the genome. Yet you want to claim that the designer intended it that way, and clearly, no matter what arrangements were observed, you'd claim it was the product of intent.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 24, 2007 2:08 PM
More Kruger Dunning Effects I see? The DI should change it's name to KD-DI. It sounds better.
MYOB'
.
Posted by: Kruger-Dunning Effect | February 24, 2007 2:11 PM
In that sense, it differs completely from Shannon information, which is a measure of randomness and the extent to which a message can be compressed. Shannon information is not relevant to biological information.
Actually, this is not correct. The Shannon-Weiner information formulation assigns information content to the entropy of an ensemble of messages communicated from a sender to a reciever. This is a classic case of confusing AIT/KCS theory with Shannon-Weiner theory, as KCS is measured by randomness and the ability of an individual object to be compressed.
In addition, I don't know where the hell he's getting the notion that either information formulation doesn't "do specific things". Both of them do very specific things. S-W information is used for the physical problem of communicating a message across a channel and KCS information is used for the problem of effectively computing a given object with a minimum-length description. Both involve specific quantities, so you can only conclude that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | February 24, 2007 2:14 PM
I'm starting to think the only worthy discussion we can have concerning creationism is psychological one.
Posted by: bpower | February 24, 2007 2:17 PM
Yes indeed, Egnor reminds me very much of Behe. Closing one's eyes to the evidence is a good way to maintain one's religiously inspired beliefs.
I DO want to see Orac in a Doctor Doom mask though.
On an unrelated note, have you seen the latest posts at Uncommon Descent? Dembski is trying to argue that vestigial structures like the appendix jibe with design because some cars retain vestigial running boards!!!! Yeah, because cars are similar to biological organisms. What a false analogy. The idiocy is astounding.
Posted by: Ric | February 24, 2007 2:19 PM
Forthekids wrote:
Examination of the genes for the antifreeze protein in fish and the nylonase protein in bacteria reveals that the genes were formed out of *non-coding DNA*. The formation of new genes is not a problem for evolution.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/evolutionary_sc.html
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/an_argument_is.html
Posted by: BC | February 24, 2007 2:26 PM
My much-loved and now, alas, retired GP had a plaque on his desk (a gift from from his daughter) that said "M.D. does not stand for Minor Deity"!
Of course not, it stands for Mr. Deity
:)
Posted by: Carlie | February 24, 2007 2:49 PM
I very much like the insightful comments by Blake Stacey (great examples relevant to what I more abstractly referred to as "sequences of dynamical systems in non-trivial chaotic regimes... and to written English texts") and by Tyler DiPietro (on ensembles in Shannon versus complexity of individual objects in Kolmogorov-Chaitin-et al). Excellent points, gentlemen! Pity that Egnor at al either will not or cannot understand them.
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | February 24, 2007 2:52 PM
This is a great thread--a civil, but very thorough and interesting smackdown. I just have one point to add:
It seems strange that Dr. Egnor would be so insistent about evolutionary biologists measuring how much "specified information" can be generated through random variation and natural selection when no ID-proponent anywhere has ever bothered to measure the quantity of CSI (I assume this is what Egnor is referring to) in any living thing, nor have they--to my knowlege--bothered to propose how this might even be done.
Posted by: Dave Carlson | February 24, 2007 3:24 PM
There several technical ways to measure information. None of them measure what we mean intuitively by the English word "information." Shannon information, for example, is essentially a measure of either unpredictability or correlation. The phrase "You can't add information to a gene," is either obviously false (if you use a technical definition,) or it's totally meaningless (if you're using the colloquial definition.)
Neurosurgeons aren't the only ones whose field is being made a mockery of by anti-evolutionists. *sigh*
Posted by: Ryan Cunningham | February 24, 2007 3:26 PM
I'm not a mathematician or a biologist, but I don't see any grounds for assuming a limit to information. Let information be defined as a gene coding a new function. Assume each gene has a certain probability of duplicating and further each of the duplicates has a certain probability of mutating. Over time the number of genes and number of unique genes would tend to increase, since simple probability suggest a large number of test are more likely to produce at least one positive result than a small number. In order to have a limit the curve produced by this would need to be convergent. If N is new codings, C is current, p is prob. duplication, m is prob. mutation and t is # generations, N=m([C+Cp]^t). Even though this is a pretty crappy model, this is clearly a DIVIRGENT function. Rather than a limit, new information should be able to increase exponentially.
Posted by: Matt Ray | February 24, 2007 3:34 PM
And new information DOES increase exponentially.
Posted by: Stanton | February 24, 2007 3:57 PM
Well, this is of course because of the Vast Darwin-Wing Conspiracy keeping them down.
Posted by: dzd | February 24, 2007 4:01 PM
What happens when a professor of neurosurgey who is a Darwin-skeptic and just happens to be a brain surgeon visits a popular Darwinist blog? He leaves with unanswered questions. Last week Rob Crowther highlighted how Dr. Michael Egnor visited Time magazine's science blog where a reporter admitted his Darwinist bias and was unable to answer Egnor's question: "how much new information can Darwinian mechanisms generate?" Egnor is professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook and an award-winning brain surgeon who has been named one of New York's best doctors by New York Magazine. Egnor recently took his questions to P.Z. Myers' popular science blog Pharyngula, where Egnor continues--unanswered--to press Darwinists for how Darwinian mechanisms produce new information.
A neurosurgeon! What a coup. Score one for the Intelligent Designers. (How many times can you insert the words surgeon or neurosurgery into one paragraph?)
I guess one brain surgeon's opinion outweighs what thousands and thousands of highly-trained, professional biologists would say about teaching creationist dogma to children.
If the D.I.'s science were any good (do they do any science at the D.I.?), they would not have to resort to enlisting prominent people to support their falderol.
A bunch of misguided questions about an incredibly successful theory do not a valid counter-theory make.
Same old, same old.
(That neurosurgeon must use someone else do all his research for him, becasue he sucks at it. In this case, he was probably too embarrassed to do so.)
Posted by: George | February 24, 2007 4:02 PM
Regarding seeing design in orderly rows of trees, as mentioned above by sugarbear and in the response of PZ- if the organization of trees appeared haphazard to the eye of the non-believer, wouldn't the committed ID/creationist just assume that the design was there but we just couldn't see it-same as the elephant in the jellybean jar? Just how "perceivable" must order be, for it to provoke cries of pleasure at the skill of the designer?
Posted by: moleculargoo | February 24, 2007 4:07 PM
We better get some rocket scientists on our side to counter their brain surgeons.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 24, 2007 4:09 PM
Matt Ray:
Except that many organisms are mortal, and compete with each other for food and other resources. The exponential model is tru if there are no limits to growth: i.e. an ecosystem expanding at the speed of light and then, eventually, faster (as volume of the ecosystem with free spaceships goes as T^3 but your number of genes and organisms goes as e^T)...
With population limits to growth, the next level of modeling gives the Logistics Curve.
But this is probably not the venue to recapitulate the Population Biology available easily online and in many textbooks.
One of my standard lines (which I started using in the early- to mid- 1960s): "The road to hell is paved with linear approximations."
This is true on log-log graph paper, too.
But good comment anyway.
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | February 24, 2007 4:14 PM
Then he is mistaken. The human brain has no known capacity. It's at least conceivable that he can no longer recall old facts due to interference, but most people can't remember most major events from their childhood anyway.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 24, 2007 4:23 PM
Posted by: llewelly | February 24, 2007 4:24 PM
Ah yes, the thorn in every librarian's side. I had an undergraduate once claim she'd been searching PsycINFO for half an hour and couldn't find anything on procrastination. I went to take a look, and I said, "well, there's probably nothing on procastination, but I'm sure there's something on procrastination. Oh look, 2047 articles."
Posted by: False Prophet | February 24, 2007 4:26 PM
Mark Chu-Carroll has some apposite remarks:
(Italics original)Posted by: RBH | February 24, 2007 4:37 PM
Sugarbear said:
Well, that's the classic IDistic error. You see trees which were planted in rows by humans, and you automatically leap to the completely unwarranted assumption that a supernatural being personally directed the growth and replication of the cells in the trunk, limbs, trees and fruit.
Do you have a clue how many dozen unwarranted leaps of logic you're making there?
Trees don't move. If a human plants a tree in a spot, it generally stays put. That a human took an already-living tree and planted it in one spot in no way suggests that there is any link to intelligence spurring the germination of the seed, the seed's growth and orientation with roots down and trunk up, the root growth through the soil, the replication of cells to make the tree a significant body above ground, nor the direction of cells into specific uses -- some to wood, some to bark, some to the cambium layer under the bark, some to leaves, some to blossoms. That a human planted a tree in a specific location does not provide any evidence that any intelligence, least of all that human, spurred the flowering of the tree, the pollination of the flowers, the setting of fruit, nor the growth and eventual ripening of the fruit.
So, when you see an orchard in neat rows, all we know is that a human put the trees in neat rows. Those rows are not only silent on the issue of a grand intelligent designer that makes trees and makes trees grow (Joyce Kilmer notwithstanding), but they provide evidence against intelligent design as the Discovery Institute proposes it. The only thing humans did to that orchard was plant the trees in rows. The rest is biological processes that, so far as anyone has evidence, are not directed by any intelligence (unless you call trees intelligent, and sometimes I wonder if trees don't have it over some people -- but I digress).
Posted by: Ed Darrell | February 24, 2007 4:57 PM
"But if I see trees lined up in an orchard in rows of 20 trees each, in perfect alignment what am I more likely to conclude, that they were the result of intelligent guidance or random chance?"
You conclude that, because you *know of the existence of humans*, and you know that humans like straight lines, and can do this. But if you did not know of the existence of humanity, or even of the existence of straight lines, if you demand, as the IDers do that we appeal to a Designer that we have no information on at all, then you are left with no way to realise the straight line formation as special at all.
Posted by: FhnuZoag | February 24, 2007 5:10 PM
I haven't read *all* the above comments, but as yet another physician I can tell you that most docs haven't a baldy clue about evolution. For NEW INFORMATION arising, you might care to check out some work I and my colleagues have done on the ANKH gene in the joint condition chondrocalcinosis (patients get calcification of their joint cartilage that causes arthritis).
Turns out that in one of our families, the cause is a new start codon for the gene, 12bp upstream of the original one, adding 4 new amino acids to the ANKH protein N terminus, and ramping up its activity *massively*. In our family, this is also associated with seizures (nobody has picked up on that yet :-( but I think it's very significant that this "bone & cartilage protein" is heavily expressed in the brain, implying a role for phosphate in seizures, but I digress).
The point here is that NEW INFORMATION has been incorporated into the protein, and it works BETTER than before. OK, that results in a negative effect, which is how we ascertained the family, but the point remains.
If anyone wants to check out the seizure paper, it's here.
(McKee et al. "Autosomal dominant early childhood seizures associated with chondrocalcinosis and a mutation in the ANKH Gene." Epilepsia. 2004 Oct;45(10):1258-60.) - sorry for the plug!
Posted by: Amenhotep | February 24, 2007 5:21 PM
Thanks for the quote PZ! I have been harping on the Long et al. paper for years and have yet to get any kind of reply out of the DI guys
Various replies:
1. FTK writes,
First, you have just conceded that Egnor and the DI were exactly wrong, when they claimed that evolution couldn't produce new information.
The vast majority of genes are modified copies of other genes. This why most known genes fall into families of related sequences. However, there are occasional cases where coding genetic material is derived "by accident" from non-coding DNA. Some examples have been mentioned -- another one, mentioned in the Long et al. 2003 paper, is Sdic (Drosophila melanogaster sperm dynein intermediate chain), which is derived from a fusion of (copies of) two previous genes, but incorporated some noncoding introns as exons.
Here is a recent paper on Sdic:
Here's another that mentions the intron:
2. Regarding whining about how maybe all these mutational mechanisms (listed in Table 1 of Long et al. 2003) aren't random -- get thee to a lab. Read about the Luria-Delbruck experiments for a lab demonstration of the randomness of mutation (the authors won a Nobel prize). If you want to demonstrate the reverse and get your own Nobel, there is nothing for it but to demonstrate it with your own replicable experiments. Besides that, all of these mechanisms *have been observed in lab populations*. Chromosome breakages, repairs, transposition, etc. all boil down to chemistry in the end. Chromosomes can have various "hotspots" where mutations are more likely for physical/chemical reasons, but none of this undermines the fact that mutations occur without favoring the organism's fitness in the environment.
3. Regarding the definition of information: What everyone has been saying is true, there is no One True Definition of "information", and if Egnor arbitrarily rules out the most common quantifiable measure, Shannon information, then he's really painted himself into a corner.
I am convinced that creationist yammering about "information" derives from their method of literalistic Bible interpretation: every word of the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God -- irreducible and unchanging in its original form (they will acknowledge corruptions of the Biblical text during copying, but they will not acknowledge that "the original Biblical text" itself is an amalgamation of various texts and traditions, reworked by multiple editors.
They think exactly the same way about DNA -- this is what is going on when Dembski talks about "intelligent design" just being "the logos theology of John's Gospel [this is the stuff about The Word was God]]" in scientific form.
In other words, they have a metaphysical, fuzzy, spiritualist definition of "information" that they then apply to biology -- but they pretend that they are talking about a rigorous scientific definition, resulting in no end of confusion and obfuscation.
Posted by: Nick (Matzke) | February 24, 2007 5:28 PM
Crystals are rather good at putting atoms into straight lines (and further patterns on top of that). Just think of the vast armies of invisible pixies, working to blue-prints provided by the alleged intelligent designer, which would be required to produce all the rocks etc if one insists on imagining ID wherever there's some degree of order.
Posted by: SEF | February 24, 2007 5:29 PM
Posted by: mark | February 24, 2007 5:38 PM
Sugarbear, I've been studying molecular biology for 5 years now, and I still don't understand what you mean. Transposable elements are recruited?!?
You see, I get the idea that you don't understand that you don't understand what you're talking about. Maybe you should go to a university library, open the humongous gray paperback called "Molecular Biology of the Cell" (first of the many authors: Alberts), and spend the next couple of weeks reading it 5 h a day. Then come back and tell us about how the trees are arranged regularly in the grove.
Life is a huge mess. If there was any design, it was Stupid Design. Creationism is blasphemy. :-)
Posted by: David Marjanović | February 24, 2007 5:40 PM
Oh, and before somebody points this out--we also know from observations that human beings have, in many instances, planted trees in regular patterns. But we are very familiar with humans and are aware of their tendency to plants things in such a manner. Human beings less commonly create new patterns in DNA to achieve desired ends (and they like to write about it when they do).
Posted by: mark | February 24, 2007 5:43 PM