Evolution Engineered

• 28May

  Stanley Cup Finals!

  Hockey No Comments

  Finally, Lord Stanley’s Cup will be played for, and the contestants (as I predicted) are the Detroit Red Wings and the Pittsburgh Penguins.

  In a rare stroke of common sense, the NHL decided to bump up the start from June 5 to May 30. Two days of no hockey before the Stanley Cup rematch begins. I can take that.

  As for my pick, two things stand out: the scoring depth of the Penguins (both Crosby and Malkin are going) and the injury sheet mounting up for the Wings. The ‘Canes ran out of gas against the Pens in the East Finals, and the Wings are looking like they could be running on fumes. That said, it is crucial for the Penguins to win Game 1 on Saturday since Game 2 follows so quickly (Sunday, May 31).

  Last year, I said the Wings’ experience was too much for the young Pens. This year, I think the Pens can pull it off. Pens in six, and Malkin takes the Conn Smythe becoming the first Ruskie to do so.

• 27May

  73 To 0

  Politics, Science 32 Comments

  There is an interesting post by Bradford at Telic Thoughts entitled A Public Policy Scientific Consensus? Bradford ends the post by asking a highly relevant question:

  …what policies would one advocate based exclusively on consideration of one’s scientific credentials?

  The first commenter, Tom Gilson, made an outstanding observation using embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) as an example to drive home his point.

  Here’s one high-profile current example (the same principle extends to other science-related issues): “Science says we should support saving lives through embryonic stem cell research.”

  The value statement buried in there is that already-born humans are of greater worth or value than not-yet-born humans. People may disagree on whether that’s true or not, but their disagreement is not based in science.

  One way to test that is by offering a response based in religion. “The Bible shows us that human life has the highest dignity and worth, right from the start, and we believe that applies from zygote to blastocyst to embryo and on until the end; and the Bible says it is wrong to sacrifice the lives of the helpless innocent.”

  Set aside for a moment whether that belief is right or wrong. Can it be countered (or supported) scientifically? If not, then how can anyone think ESCR policy decisions are science decisions? Sure, science informs the decision: Does ESCR have life-saving potential? What are its financial costs? What are the alternatives? And so on. These things enter into the moral balance, certainly. But it’s an information/advisement role, as you said. Science’s role does not–indeed, cannot–extend to making policy decisions. (emphasis mine)

  That reminded me of a statistic I heard of comparing the number of treatments using adult stem cells versus embryonic stem cells. The score is shocking: 73 to 0 in favour of adult stem cell treatment. It’s not even close! I don’t have the funding numbers in front of me, but I bet that ESCR funding is greater than that of Adult Stem Cell Research (ASCR), which would make the score even more lopsided. Using a football analogy, this would be like the University of Minnesota-Morris constantly whupping the likes of Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, USC, Ohio State, (well, you get the point).

  Why bring up the score? Referring to the emphasised portion of Tom’s comment, science has obviously come up with viable alternatives to ESCR. Combine that with a nasty habit of embryonic stem cells forming tumours, it seems that ESCR being lobbied as a potential miracle cure is not from a purely scientific standpoint. There has to be something else supporting ESCR.

  This is not to say that ESCR has no scientifc value nor should the government mandate all ESCR to cease. The point is that there is something more than science behind lobbying for more ESCR funding. If science is to advise on public policy, it should recommend (without argument) that ASCR is the more promising avenue, not ESCR.

• 21May

  Happy Birthday To EE

  EE 1 Comment

  On a dark and dreary evening about a year and two weeks ago, the spawn of Satan EvolutionEngineered was born! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

  All kidding aside, it has been an interesting, frustrating, and enjoyable year at EE. Ideas were proposed; some died a horrible silent death while some still stand. Lively debates, entertaining discussions, and even some trash-talk (accompanied by laying down the law) occurred.

  So where am I today as opposed to a year ago? What have I learned in the past year?

  • I am willing to grant the plausibility of common descent. Of course, I’ve stated that through FLE, common descent and design are one and the same. There are still many, many hurdles to overcome in order for common descent to ascend to the probable category, but the journey should be fun.
  • This may seem contradictory to the above point, but I still haven’t seen compelling evidence of macroevolution/speciation. The contradiction is erased when you consider common descent/design as a platform from which to work from.
  • Natural selection seems to play less and less a role than I first thought.
  • The IDM is still an impediment to ID Science. And yes, IDS is there, it’s just shouted down by IDM.
  • IMO, Mike Gene and Del Ratzsch are the new pioneers of IDS (Mike with the science and Dr. Ratzsch with the underlying philosophy).
  • While I may be having doubts about Information Theory shedding any light on design detection, I still think there’s something IDS can gain from it. IDS also needs to take a closer look at evolution from an energy and quantum mechanics standpoint.
  • The mainstream media (MSM) does not get it with respect to the debate. They seem more willing to swallow myths and false legends and sell hype and politics than actually dig more deep into the issues. I’m not saying ID media like Expelled is a solution (still haven’t seen it), just that if one wants better info, the Internet and library seem like a better place to learn about evolution and ID.
  • Both sides need a “time out”. I suspect “kiss and make up” is unrealistic. ;P

  My thanks go out to friends, supporters and critics alike.

  *raising the beer mug*

  Here’s to many more years of fun at “the asylum”.

• 21May

  When Science Degenerates Into Media Hype

  Evolution, Media, Science 2 Comments

  Regarding Ida (or Darwinius masillae):

  From the beginning, Ida’s unveiling has been a master class in ballyhoo. A week ago, the first breathless press releases began to arrive, portending the presentation of the now famous 47-million-year-old primate fossil from Germany: “MEDIA ALERT,” the notice shouted in all caps. “WORLD RENOWNED SCIENTISTS REVEAL A REVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC FIND THAT WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING.” …

  Most paleontologists roll their eyes at that sort of overhyped nonsense, especially given that there’s real science lurking underneath. After wading through the false advertising, though, most people might have a hard time finding it.

  Read the rest here.

  UPDATE: Some more critical articles/posts of the (undeserved) media hype surrounding “Ida” (HT: Robert Crowther @ ENV):

  From Tim Arango @ The New York Times

  On Tuesday morning, researchers will unveil a 47-million-year-old fossil they say could revolutionize the understanding of human evolution at a ceremony at the American Museum of Natural History.

  But the event, which will coincide with the publishing of a peer-reviewed article about the find, is the first stop in a coordinated, branded media event, orchestrated by the scientists and the History Channel, including a film detailing the secretive two-year study of the fossil, a book release, an exclusive arrangement with ABC News and an elaborate Web site.

  “Any pop band is doing the same thing,” said Jorn H. Hurum, a scientist at the University of Oslo who acquired the fossil and assembled the team of scientists that studied it. “Any athlete is doing the same thing. We have to start thinking the same way in science.” …

  But despite a television teaser campaign with the slogan “This changes everything” and comparisons to the moon landing and the Kennedy assassination, the significance of this discovery may not be known for years. …

  All of this seems a departure from the normal turn of events, where researchers study their subject and publish their findings, and let the media chips fall where they may. But this campaign is only the latest example of the scientific media blockbuster, of which the National Geographic Society has become perhaps the most successful practitioner. It often gives grants to researchers, with National Geographic gaining the rights to produce television shows and magazine articles related to any discoveries.

  And these kinds of publicity campaigns can backfire. In 2007, for example, the Discovery Channel ran a documentary called “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” which had its share of detractors in the academic community.

  From Ed Yong @ Not Exactly Rocket Science (with tongue planted firmly in cheek):

  Scientists and people who actually know a thing or two about evolution warned of hype and exaggeration but were forced to abandon their reason and critical analysis in the face of incontrovertible speculation that Ida could convert base metals into gold and has already led to the invention of flying cars.

  From Brian Switek @ Laelaps (Caution: the following textual smackdown may cause certain heads to spin!):

  The bottom line is that the hypothesis that Darwinius is closer to anthropoids than tarsiers or omomyids does not have strong support. Even though the authors of the paper constructed a very simple cladogram they did not undertake a full, rigorous cladistic analysis to support their claims. I am baffled as to how they could stress the significance of this fossil without undertaking the requisite research to support their hypothesis.

  Is Darwinius important to understanding primate evolution? Of course! It is an exceptionally preserved specimen that could do much to aid our understanding of adapid evolution and paleobiology. The grand claims about it being our ancestor, though, can not be upheld as true. The researchers simply did not do the work to support their case, and even if their language was more reserved in the technical paper they have gone hand-in-hand with the History Channel to create an aura of sensationalism around the fossil. I hardly think this is a responsible way to conduct or communicate science, flooding the media with poorly supported claims, but as reported in the New York Times some of this paper’s authors care more about marketing than about good science; …

  This is a shame. I would have hoped that this fossil would receive the care and attention it deserves, but for now it looks like a cash cow for the History Channel. Indeed, this association may not have only presented overblown claims to the public, but hindered good science, as well. As Karen James has suggested, the overall poor quality of the paper and the disproportionate hyping of the find make me wonder if this research was rushed into publication so that the media splash would occur on time.

• 15May

  Stanley Cup – Conference Finals

  Hockey No Comments

  What an awesome 2009 Stanley Cup Playoffs, eh!? Crosby vs. Ovechkin! The Rise of the Blackhawks! The Cardiac Canes! Last year’s Cup finalists still going! Leads aren’t safe! Down is up! It’s enough to make your head spin from all the excitement!

  So looking back at my predictions for the Conference Semis, I successfully predicted Detroit and Chicago, but busted on Boston and Washington. However, if you go back further, look who I had for my Eastern Finals picks. That’s right, I had Carolina! So I award myself a third successful prediction for Conference Finals teams based on that technicality (I did pick Detroit and Chicago when the playoffs started). ;P

  Now onto my prediction for the Stanley Cup Finalists. In the West, Detroit’s depth and experience will be too much for the young upstart Blackhawks to overcome. That’s too bad, ’cause I quite enjoy watching these young Hawks. The third period of Game 6 vs the Canucks was great up-and-down action!

  In the East, my decision ain’t so easy, and I admit I’ve gone back and forth on this one. Pittsburgh has scoring depth but hasn’t seen a goalie of Cam Ward’s quality yet these playoffs,. The Hurricanes are gritty and Eric Staal’s having a Conn Smythe (playoff MVP) type playoffs, but haven’t faced the scoring depth of the Penguins. In the end, I find myself siding with scoring depth over goaltending (as long as Fleury can make timely saves, that should offset any advantage Carolina has in goal).

  So there you have it. I’m calling for rematch from last year’s Cup Finals. Sit back and enjoy! I know I will!

• 14May

  RNA World Re-visited

  OOL 22 Comments

  Scientists may have figured out the chemistry that sparked the beginning of life on Earth.

  The above quote was the start of an interesting article at ScienceNews.org (HT to kornbelt888). There are two interesting aspects to it.

  The first is an experimental breakthrough:

  While reactions to make RNA from ancient precursors worked on paper, the chemistry didn’t work in the lab. And some scientists thought even RNA molecules were too complex to have spontaneously formed in the primordial soup. [John] Sutherland [of University of Manchester in England] and his colleagues have shown the reactions are possible.

  The second is a cautionary note:

  “But while this is a step forward, it’s not the whole picture,” [James] Ferris [of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute] points out. “It’s not as simple as putting compounds in a beaker and mixing it up. It’s a series of steps. You still have to stop and purify and then do the next step, and that probably didn’t happen in the ancient world.”

  The RNA world scenario is still suspect, but this latest study is still impressive. Let’s face it, a new method of forming RNA (whether it’s in the lab or not) is interesting.

  I do like the qualification by James Ferris. It is a step forward, but it in no way represents a natural method of forming RNA. If anything, the experiment and its findings point towards teleology and design rather than non-teleology and mindless mechanisms. 

  Just saying, that’s all.

• 14May

  Sternberg The Storyteller

  ID, Interesting People 1 Comment

  I have to admit, I’m becoming a fan of Richard Sternberg, or at least his style of writing after reading his latest contribution to ENV.

• 01May

  The “Engineering Hypothesis”

  Engineering, FLE 13 Comments

  (originally posted 19-December-2008)

  In Chapter 7 of The Design Matrix, Mike Gene introduces his Front-Loaded Evolution hypothesis:

  “Since the design of the first cells entailed the propagation of design through reproducing entities, and reproduction entails evolution, a truly intelligent designer would anticipate evolution. … Front-loading is the investment of a significant amount of information at the initial stage of evolution (the first life forms) whereby this information shapes and constrains subsequent evolution through its dissipation. This is not to say that every aspect of evolution is pre-programmed and determined. It merely means that life was built to evolve with tendencies as a consequence of carefully chose initial states in combination with the way evolution works. …
  
  “Front-loading, by definition, is about designing the future through the present. It is about imposing some kind of constraint on evolution, or more simply put, it is using evolution to carry out design objectives.”

  I want to draw your attention to the bold type. “…using evolution to carry out design objectives.” What does it mean to “use evolution”?

  IMO, this entails engineering-like knowledge. Engineers need to have extensive and detailed knowledge of the materials they are working with along with the relevant mechanisms involved. In FLE, this means the designer requires the same knowledge with regards to the materials of life and evolutionary mechanisms.

  FLE implies that the designer utilised this knowledge in the design of the first life form to map out probable outcomes based on how the evolutionary mechanisms would affect the life form and its descendants. However, a caveat is required:

  “This is not to say that every aspect of evolution is pre-programmed and determined. It merely means that life was built to evolve with tendencies as a consequence of carfully chosen initial states in combination with [evolutionary mechanisms].”
  Mike Gene, Chapter 7, The Design Matrix

  Now, I shall attempt to expand upon the FLE hypothesis. Thanks to a commenter at Telic Thoughts (TT), I shall call this the “engineering hypothesis” (but I get 100% of the royalties once I trademark it).

  In my first TT post, Common Descent & Common Design – An Unexpected Outcome, I wrote how I found it unexpected, yet reasonable, that through the lens of FLE that the differences between common descent and common design evaporate and that common descent would be a design preference for the designer. Using evolutionary mechanisms to do the work through time is using the available energy and materials in an efficient manner. Why re-invent when one can “borrow” from previous designs? This also limits the amount of interventions by the designer to a minimum. To clear any confusion and misunderstanding, common design used in this fashion is different than what is used by human engineers in that it is front-loaded in the first designed life form rather than inserted at various times.

  One commenter stated:

  “…JJS seems perilously close to admitting he expects no detectable differences between the process in his engineering hypothesis and the process currently accepted by biologists.”

  There is a big difference. The “engineering hypothesis” implies the currently accepted processes, while valid for accounting for the variation of biological organisms, are not sufficient to start life. Thus, the process in the “engineering hypothesis” differs from the currently accepted process at the beginning of the process.

  I should state that this is not a scientific way to detect design in nature, but merely an expansion of an origin of life hypothesis, of which there are many. I hope to be able to expand upon this in future posts, both here and at TT.

• 01May

  Lessons From the Scablands

  ID, Science No Comments

  (originally posted 23-July-2008)

  Last night, I watched an intriguing episode of NOVA called Mystery of the Megaflood which provided the scientific evidence that the Scablands were formed by a catastrophic flood that was caused by the abrupt (brittle?) failure of an ice dam thousands of years ago. I would encourage everyone to watch this very education and eye-opening show.

  Watching Mystery of the Megaflood also made me think of the evolution/ID debates and what lessons can be applied from this:

  1. Gradualism is not always the answer. Geology has been dominated by gradualism: geological formations are best explained by erosion via water and/or wind or other mechanism over large periods of time. Catastrophic events were shunned. In fact, when J. Harlen Brentz presented his hypothesis of how the Scablands were formed in 1923, he was ridiculed. However, his hypothesis was later vindicated.

  Just as Catastrophism was/is frowned upon by the geological establishment, so is a similar hypothesis frowned upon by the majority of evolutionary biologists: saltationism. Could saltationism be vindicated sometime in the future?

  2. A qualifier to point 1 is that Brentz’s hypothesis was vindicated due to a large amount of scientific investigation over a period time. Brentz wrote his paper in 1923, his insights were vindicated by the 1950’s, and the details were filled in around the 1990’s. The point: Catastrophism needed a wealth of scientific experimentation and verification, something that ID is sorely lacking at present. The term “Less talk and more action” seems appropriate.

  3. How Brentz’s hypothesis was accepted is a great example of how to go through the Explanatory Continuum as proposed by Mike Gene in The Design Matrix: it started as a possibility in 1923 (a remote one); then circumstantial evidence was gathered and the hypothesis progressed to being plausible (1950’s); details were filled in such that the hypothesis is now seen as probable (1990’s). Note that almost 70 years were needed to progress from possible to plausible to probable. See Chapter 2 of the Design Matrix for more on the Explanatory Continuum.

  On an engineering side note, I found the small-scale models presented interesting and educational. However, as any engineer knows, what works at a small scale does not completely translate to a larger scale. This is called “scale effect”, and I’d be interested in knowing what scale effects there are in this research.

• 01May

  Grandma’s Universe

  Astronomy No Comments

  (originally posted 08-July-2008)

  The “grandma” of ID, Denyse O’Leary, has “recently” created a new blog called “Colliding Universes” to complement a book project of hers on multiple universes. Seeing as how astronomy is of special interest to me*, I have spent some time checking it out, and Grandma O’Leary has some cool posts there**.

  While I am more interested in the articles she refers to, Grandma’s comments are interesting too. Take for example a recent post on the recent findings on Mercury by the MESSENGER probe (not only does Mercury appear to have an active magnetic field, but it also appears like it has volcanic vents!):

  “Does the planet Mercury need to exist? – I mean in the business sense. Does it do anything? Or is it like those souvenir shells that persist forever on the mantelpiece? They have no use, but that’s not the same thing as saying that they are not there for a reason. There is a difference between use and reason.”

  I like Grandma O’Leary. Everyone should have a grandma like her. That said, I don’t think Mercury is “useless”. To provide one possible answer, perhaps Mercury is there to increase our understanding of how the solar system and universe works and thereby employing many talented nerds astronomers to gather data and interpret. Granted, there is no physical law that demands Mercury be there, but there it be, so I sez let’s examine it and learn from it.

  One thing I must note from the referred article: why are astronomers always surprised that the solar system/universe is different than expected? The Voyager missions should have taught us by now to expect the unexpected.

  *When I was a kid, I wanted to be an astronomer; can you say “NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD!!!”? But hey, nerds are OK and are sometimes cool. There, that’s the extent of my olive branch. Take it or be swatted by it

  **Some other interesting Colliding Universes posts with article links can be found here, here, and here.

« Previous Entries