I am going to place a link to your discussion in the comments section of my UD post.

I will try to make references to your insights on the matter if I post again on these issues.

Thank you for taking the time to write on these matters as it will help improve the accuracy of my future presentations.

I certainly will not be the one who overthrows existing theories, my role is to highlight areas that should be investigated. More pro-IDers are coming through the secular university systems, over the next decades, they will have the opportunity to overturn the many papers on the subject if they are indeed incorrect (we will see).

Regarding the fact that selection can select for robustness, that was not exactly the my point nor Denton's. My point was not "selection can not select for robustness" it is that "natural selection (acting on RM) is hard pressed to create robustness from scratch".

As a matter of first principles, NS cannot in general generate large scale integrated, functional information, that proceeds from first principles of information science. If robustness is information rich and it evolved it was either through pre-existing information or direct design.

However, Wagner's book is on the way, and I will review it for areas where Denton's and my thesis need revision.

If I may say, your criticism's have been by far the most informative of any I've seen in months.

Thank you again for taking the time to comment on what I have written.

Salvador
Salvador Cordova | 06.27.06 - 11:54 am | #

I'm glad you found the comments helpful. I'm always willing to discuss interesting topics, provided I have the time (easier in the Summer).

One more thing. You said:

Regarding the fact that selection can select for robustness, that was not exactly the my point nor Denton's. My point was not "selection can not select for robustness" it is that "natural selection (acting on RM) is hard pressed to create robustness from scratch".

Greetings Ricardo,

Wagner's book is on the way, and perhaps after I read it I can dialogue on the issue in a way that might be more meaningful to you and the readers of this exchange.

There is a difference between the following statements:

1. Natrual selection can select a feature

2. Natural selection was a major factor in creating a feature

That was the subtle distinction I was trying to point out.

For example, the presence of a certain protein may confer a selective advantage. The fact that a protein confers selective advantage does not imply automatically the protein was evolved primarily through natural selection.

In like manner, the hypothesis regarding robustness (if the robustness is information rich) is that although it may confer selective advantage in certain contexts, it does not automatically imply natural selection was the main cause for the robustness capability in the first place.

You point out that you do not see the issue as problematic, and I will for the moment (given your expertise on the issue) not immediately attempt to dispute your objection, but rather study the matter in more detail (Wagner's book is on the way).

I was merely passing on Denton's hypothesis in my uncommon descent post. You have challenged some of his assertions, and I think your challenge warrants more review of his hypothesis.

I hope however, you will not hold it against me if for the mean time, I tentatively side with Denton as I review the issues in more detail. If I post on the issue again at UD, I will however try to provide links to opposing opinions which I respect, such as yours.

And for the record, Denton is not a creationist, nor is he even overtly pro-ID. I think his position was taken indpendent of any personal bias.



Salvador
PS
Thank you for your time and offering your expertise.

And incidentally, I think highly of John Sanford's book. It is meant for a popular audience, but I think it provides a very good outline of the ideas I am sympathetic to. Although it is not specifically pro-ID, I think it makes a very good case from basic population genetics (he was a geneticist for over 30 years).

If you are willing to review the material in Sanford's book, I would welcome hearing your thoughts. Thus I'd be more than happy to arrange to get you a copy, compliments of me.
Salvador Cordova | 06.28.06 - 2:01 pm | #

I understand your argument. It's a bit like the distinction between:

1. An intelligent designer can create a feature

2. An intelligent designer was a major factor in creating a feature

I accept that there is a difference (in the selection case). In fact, there is a reasonable argument to be had over the importance of selection in the evolution of robustness (there was a similar argument between Fisher and Wright on the evolution of dominance).

Also, check out an addition to the redundancy in vulval development argument (in red). I tried to make it clearer.

I'd be happy to look at Sanford's book if you send me a copy. I might even post some comments here. Enjoy Wagner's book.
Ricardo Azevedo | Homepage | 06.28.06 - 4:32 pm | #

I just recieved Wagner's book, and I look forward to studying it.

I will e-mail you to get a university address to have Sanford's book sent to you.

regards,
Salvador
Salvador Cordova | 06.29.06 - 7:45 am | #