I always like caffeine's posts. He an expert at taking a katana to the manure heap.

I'm not trying to build an argument for God, I'm trying to take apart Dawkins' argument against God. My attempt may or may not be successful, but judge it on how well it works against Dawkins, not on whether it builds a convincing case for God.



I think you must have missed that I first conceded that your point was valid and did have strength against my argument. I tried to make that as explicit as I could. My second statement was purely personal, it wasn't meant to enter the scope of the argument. That was probably unclear.



Kea is right, this does cut right to the heart of the matter. I think if we want to be charitable to Dawkins, and follow his intentions, then this is exactly the right defense.

But the point for me is that while this is clearly what Dawkins means, it is not what he says. He says his argument is about "interesting complexity", which he then goes on to equate with apparent design in living things. But the way he defines "interesting complexity" could also encompass mathematical objects such as the Mandelbrot.

This may seem like a nit-picking point, but this seemingly unimportant gloss actually does massive philosophical work for Dawkins. The scientific portion of his argument does not rest on evolution explaining anything but biological life, but the philosophical portion of it rests on evolution explaining everything that Dawkins considers important.

If he explicitly limits the scope to life, then he substantially weakens the rhetorical force of his argument. Having a naturalistic explanation for one important thing is wonderful, but it doesn't have the same power as having a single unified naturalistic explanation for all interesting things.

Even though Leo's point, as I conceded, weakens my counter-argument, I don't think it destroys it. Dawkins still needs to wrestle with the interesting complexity of math, even if it isn't "irreducible."

As I read this, you are conceding all of biology to Dawkins. Is this correct?

For the purposes of this argument, yes, with one caveat: My argument does rely on establishing that a significant portion of what Dawkins identifies as biological complexity, and further identifies as solely produced through the process of evolution, is additionally dependent on the existence of mathematical complexity.

As far as the actual biological science covered by Dawkins, my personal opinion is that his reading of Darwin innovates upon the original in ways that are incorrect, but I don't have the background or the standing to argue that competently. From my review of the literature, it seems as though that's being hashed out in scientific circles already. That isn't important to my current argument, however, so for these purposes I'm willing to take it as a given.

Can you give a concrete example of a system that cannot be explained by the Theory of Evolution? And please be careful with your wording. Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are two separate concepts.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, and how it relates to the statement I made. Can you clarify?

Please provide an example of an organism or biological feature that is not solely produced through the process of evolution. Please provide your reasoning on why evolution is insufficient to explain the natural history or present function of the example organism or feature.

I am asking for a member of the set of organisms or features that lie outside the set of all features and organisms produced through the process of evolution. Demonstrate that this is not a null set.

OK got it. I think what I'm claiming is somewhat different from what you think my claim is, but an example is still best to demonstrate the difference.

Consider the shape of the fern. A fern is uncontroversially an example of the kind of object Dawkins considers under the classification "interesting complexity".

The shape of the fern clearly has evolutionary advantages. It arguably appears to have been designed to meet those ends. I think it's fair to include it under the category "appearance of design".

According to Dawkins' account, the interesting complexity found in any biological entity is built up a little bit at a time over the course of millions of years. However, in the case of the fern, we know that its shape is built using a tool in evolution's toolbox called "fractal geometry."

The fern couldn't exist without evolution. But neither could it exist without fractal geometry.

You can, however, have fractal geometry without evolution. A crystal, for example, can grow in a fractal pattern.

Thus at least one thing that Dawkins would consider as having interesting complexity derives at least some of that interesting complexity from a process independent of evolution.

To be clear, I'm not claiming the shape is not created through evolution, I'm claiming that having fractal mathematics in the toolbox allows evolution to make some jumps that Dawkins fails to acknowledge.

Objection #1 - Caffeine might point out that the shape of the fern doesn't represent "design" in the same way that for example, an eye represents "design". However, remember Dawkins is talking about the "appearance of design." The selection of the particular shape of the fern counts as a real "design choice" on behalf of evolution. But there are general fractal features of that shape --self similarity, efficiency, etc. --that also contribute to the "appearance" of design without actually representing design choices.

Objection #2 - Leo might point out the shape of the fern is actually quite simple, from a fractal point of view. But it's only simple once you know how it's generated. Dawkins' entire argument about evolution is of the same pattern --it is simple once you know how it works. The final shape of the fern is complex, the simplicity of the generator cannot be held to count against the evaluation of the complexity of the result.

Objection #3 - Drache or CCC might point out that this account merely describes two naturalistic processes working together rather than just one --it doesn't change the overall progression from supernatural explanations towards naturalistic explanations for the features of existence. However, while this might be an appropriate objection for a generic atheist, it isn't available to Dawkins because of his philosophical reliance on the uniqueness of evolution as a creative principle, an assumption that he leans heavily upon in his "meme" theory of psychology and his multiverse theory of the origins of the universe.

Objection #4 - Waffle might point out that evolution should be expected to use all natural tools available to it. This is correct, but it doesn't match Dawkins' claim, which is that all the interesting complexity originates solely in the incremental process of evolution. (It is worth here noting that he has strenuously defended this view of evolution as wholly gradual against such respected in-the-field objectors as Gould and Eldredge). Mathematical Complexity is a fairly young discipline, but it has been around long enough that one could reasonably expect Dawkins to have acknowledged it in some of his more recent writings, if it were the case that his model could actually accommodate it.

Am I the only one who sees the necessity for fractal geometry as redundant? It is quite likely that the fern couldn't exist if six were equal to nine or if there were no numbers greater than five, but we don't usually need to specify those things in explaining how the fern came to be how it is. That it takes aspects of pure mathematics as read does not represent an incompleteness in the theory.

And to point out that sometimes things don't need to have evolved to exhibit intricate complexity which some might interpret as looking as if it were designed may be true, but as an objection to the idea that evolution completes the puzzle of why living things look purpose-built it's a rather pedantic one, don't you think?

I don't think it matters to Dawkins' argument because it isn't an argument against God, it is an argument against the necessity of God to explain things. He is essentially saying that evolution makes it possible to believe the world came about through simple rules, rather than a designer, by explaining the main type of entities that are not generated by simple rules today.

This opens up an alternative to a deity for those of us who think complexity from simple rules is a better way of explaining things. Of course it doesn't stop anyone from believing in God if they really want to, which is essentially the perspective you've been arguing from. In doing so, though, I don't think you're addressing Dawkins' argument at all, simply showing that it doesn't work with your presuppositions. Well, it's not supposed to.


It seems to me caffeine's main point is that you are failing to distinguish between complex design, what Dawkins is talking about, and complexity in general. From this perspective the branching pattern of the fern is different from the same branching pattern in a mineral vein, because the former is linked with apparent teleology, and the latter isn't. Treating them interchangeably is preventing you from actually addressing the topic.


The general shape of the fern is simple if you look at it with an appropriate type of geometry, just as the high volume of a sphere is simple if you look at it with an appropriate geometry. This is completely different from the fern taken as a whole; evolution explains the history of how such a thing came about, but it doesn't make the present artifact appear any simpler. I think you are having trouble with this because you keep focusing on the few nails that can be hit with the hammer of chaos, and ignoring most of the complexity you find in living things.

So let me give you one example of what I'm talking about. Here is an amino acid sequence for a protein, called phosphofructokinase. It looks like a random order of 500 amino acids, and from the perspective of where it comes from, it is one - it is read off of an equally arbitrary sequence of nucleic acid bases. But it just so happens to fold in a way that catalyzes a reaction changing fructose phosphate to fructose biphosphate. Not just that, but it also happens to interact with phosphoenolpyruvate or citrate in a way that it stops catalyzing this reaction.

Which turns out to work out, because the change from fructose phosphate to fructose biphosphate doesn't reverse. And other equally arbitrary-seeming amino acid sequences turn the latter into phosphoenolpyruvate and ultimately citrate. So, because this protein has the precise folding it does, cells are able to keep a supply of phosphoenolpyruvate and citrate without irreversibly using up more fructose phosphate than they have to. And ultimately, all of metabolism depends on that and other steps like it.

This is not an emergent result like a branching structure or weather feature, which are complex when viewed separately from the rules that describe them. This is a specific sequence containing over 2000 bits of information seemingly tailored for a specific result. Evolution helps you account for the present object but it doesn't help you describe it; the only way to do that is to give that information. And it's a single protein out of millions in a cell, meshing into countless networks where their effects just happen to complement one another.

This is the sort of thing people mean by complex design. By focusing instead on a few features that can be described easily with chaos, like that those cells might go on to create branching patterns by branching, you're ignoring the vast, vast, vast majority of the complexity that sets living things apart. There may be nails in a house, but it is not a pile of nails, and I wouldn't even expect someone to pay special attention to them when they talk about where architecture comes from. Please join us in considering the rest of the place.

Excellent post, Leo!

And phosphofructokinase is my new favorite word.



Well yes, except for that time on Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:54 pm when I cited Punctuated Equilibrium by name, briefly outlined its effects and correctly placed it as a hypothesis currently awaiting acceptance as a mechanism of evolution. Or that time on Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:11 pm, when I talked about how high stress on a population can lead to nonlinear population densities, leading to bottlenecking and Punctuated Equilibrium.

You might as well say that evolution is so basic that we might as well not specify it when we explain the fern. We assume basic arithmetic because we're all familiar with it. Mathematical complexity isn't the kind of thing people naturally assume, it's a fairly recent discovery --more recent than evolution, particularly when speaking of its role in biology.



Again this reverses the historical timeline. Better to say that complexity completes the puzzle.

@ Leo - You don't agree with my argument, but you have understood it. Your remaining objections are basic to the fabric of the argument, not things that can be resolved without one of us changing our commitments.

The only thing I would note is that this argument is narrowly aimed at Dawkins and his commitments, which are not the same as yours.



"He" meaning Dawkins, not "he" meaning waffle. Dawkins denies punctuated equilibrium, not waffle denies punctuated equilibrium.

Thank you very much, waffle. It's always nice for occasional-posters like me to find we're appreciated too.


The only thing I'm aware that I was committed to was making an honest appraisal of the topics at hand, like what the argument from complex design is supposed to pertain to, whether there are genuine differences in the complexity of living and non-living things, how important fractals are to explaining them, and so on, learning where I'm potentially wrong about them and helping others do the same. I would only discuss such a thing with someone on the assumption their ultimate commitment is the same; this weird phrase makes it sound as if yours isn't.

Please enumerate the jumps.

"Commitments" as a technical term alluding to the fact that we don't all see everything in the same way.

There's a great deal in nearly every discussion that relates to unclearness or misunderstandings. Eventually, however, you get down deep enough that you either agree or the things you disagree about are basic enough that it would be unexpected for one or the other person to change their mind regardless of how much clarity is gained.

I was indicating that I think you and I have reached that point. i.e., you do understand what I mean when I say that mathematical complexity is a significant contributor to biological complexity, you just don't agree, you do understand what I mean when I say that fractals have the appearance of design, you just don't agree that they do. We have different commitments in regards to what qualifies as "significant" and what is meant by "appearance." It's hard to say there is an objective way to call one of us right and one of us wrong.