Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Guy Threepwood]

Then so must any chemical reaction.

on some level yes, the fundamental forces, the universal constants, the energies in atoms, all specify something beyond themselves; ultimately the life supporting world we live in, and all add to the evidence for an intellect 'monkeying with physics' as I think Hoyle put it?

 

[Speedwell]

on some level yes, the fundamental forces, the universal constants, the energies in atoms, all specify something beyond themselves; ultimately the life supporting world we live in, and all add to the evidence for an intellect 'monkeying with physics' as I think Hoyle put it?

But with respect to "monkeying with physics" we understand how chemical reactions work; the naturalistic explanations are entirely sufficient. There appears to be no room for "extra" causality.

 

[Shemjaza]

on some level yes, the fundamental forces, the universal constants, the energies in atoms, all specify something beyond themselves; ultimately the life supporting world we live in, and all add to the evidence for an intellect 'monkeying with physics' as I think Hoyle put it?

If your method of detection just matches literally everything then it doesn't mean anything.

Your definition of information doesn't appear to be measurable or quantifiable... so it can't be declared to increase or decrease.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But with respect to "monkeying with physics" we understand how chemical reactions work; the naturalistic explanations are entirely sufficient. There appears to be no room for "extra" causality.

That's the watchmaker fallacy- 'we understand how the watch works, so intelligent agency is not required..'

i.e. automated function is not equal to automated origin, the opposite argument can be better made I would say- because it again points back to specifying information, in the watch and molecular compounds

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If your method of detection just matches literally everything then it doesn't mean anything.

Your definition of information doesn't appear to be measurable or quantifiable... so it can't be declared to increase or decrease.

No, back to the pile of 100 bricks dumped by the loader

their pattern contains more total information than a neat 10 x 10 wall-
but the wall contains the greater amount of specifying information ( a wall) which allows us to easily tell which was intelligently designed

The irony here is that yes, nature is full of specifying information which we grow up with deeming 'natural' and hence 'unremarkable' with no direct sign of intelligent agency, it's easy to form a concept of 'inevitable specification' occurring naturally, but to examine it truly objectively... where did this information come from?

 

[Speedwell]

That's the watchmaker fallacy- 'we understand how the watch works, so intelligent agency is not required..'

That's really dumb. No one says that. We know how chemical reactions work, and their behavior is completely explained by the action of natural forces. If there other forces helping to push the atoms around, how can they be detected?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'd agree, though the vast majority of mutations are neutral/deleterious - the vast majority of advantages are slight

a slightly advantageous difference has an extremely tenuous link with having more offspring.

If a mountain Gorilla has an average of 3 offspring in her life, how large an advantage must she have, in order to cause her to be more likely to have 4? that's a whopping advantage, not the sort of thing gained through slight natural variations commonly observed

I can't say I'm familiar with the gorilla reproductive cycle, but going from 3 to 4 offspring is not necessarily a big change (it might be as simple as increasing the likelihood of twins, or reducing the time between first ovulation and breeding, or a slight reduction in infant mortality); the question is whether it is a long term advantage.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

simply by recognizing that it specifies something beyond itself- i.e. beyond what inherently constitutes it's medium

How do you tell signal from noise? specifically, do you recognize that it 'specifies something beyond what inherently constitutes it's medium?

Let's say you see a simple pattern of sticks or stones on the ground or some gouges on a tree trunk - how would you tell that it 'specifies something beyond what inherently constitutes its medium'?

Suppose you come across a hoofprint in the mud - it is information that tells you that a young roe deer passed that way recently - it appears to 'specify something beyond what inherently constitutes its medium', does that mean it's of intelligent origin?

 

[Shemjaza]

No, back to the pile of 100 bricks dumped by the loader

their pattern contains more total information than a neat 10 x 10 wall-
but the wall contains the greater amount of specifying information ( a wall) which allows us to easily tell which was intelligently designed

The irony here is that yes, nature is full of specifying information which we grow up with deeming 'natural' and hence 'unremarkable' with no direct sign of intelligent agency, it's easy to form a concept of 'inevitable specification' occurring naturally, but to examine it truly objectively... where did this information come from?

How do you measure specifying information... aside from knowing that it was man made? Is there any objective measurement you can apply?

I thought you'd already asserted that everything has specifying information?

Intricate crystal structures can be derived from chemical growth patterns and basic mathematics... does that count as specified or not?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's really dumb. No one says that. We know how chemical reactions work, and their behavior is completely explained by the action of natural forces. If there other forces helping to push the atoms around, how can they be detected?

Sticks and stones Speedy..

I don't think you are dumb, but you did miss the point I was making:

Likewise we know how watches work, and their behavior is completely explained by the action of natural forces.

This is in no way constitutes evidence for watches being created by unguided natural forces- quite the opposite in fact

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I can't say I'm familiar with the gorilla reproductive cycle, but going from 3 to 4 offspring is not necessarily a big change (it might be as simple as increasing the likelihood of twins, or reducing the time between first ovulation and breeding, or a slight reduction in infant mortality); the question is whether it is a long term advantage.

"the question is whether it is a long term advantage"

exactly! if it takes a long term for the advantage (natural selection) to present itself over many generations, then what phenomena is preserving this slight advantage meanwhile? Remembering that in the vast majority of situations in the wild, most genetic lines die out regardless? your own natural anticipation and desire to preserve that small advantage- it works in thought experiments, not in cold hard algorithms

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How do you tell signal from noise? specifically, do you recognize that it 'specifies something beyond what inherently constitutes it's medium?

Let's say you see a simple pattern of sticks or stones on the ground or some gouges on a tree trunk - how would you tell that it 'specifies something beyond what inherently constitutes its medium'?

Suppose you come across a hoofprint in the mud - it is information that tells you that a young roe deer passed that way recently - it appears to 'specify something beyond what inherently constitutes its medium', does that mean it's of intelligent origin?

if the sticks or stones spell 'HELP' or 'I LOVE JANE' - your best guess is that they were intelligently arranged

I have a great view of a snowy valley right now that is covered in deer and coyote tracks, I've never seen them spell anything- but you could still identify some intelligence by the patterns they create: coyote tracks following the deer tracks- we would be drifting though from the stronger point of patterns being specifically used to communicate information as in DNA or books.. but still evidence of intelligence- as opposed to tumble weeds rolling in the wind: again proactive intelligence v natural reaction - the distinctive fingerprints of intent, will, desire...

 

[Speedwell]

if the sticks or stones spell 'HELP' or 'I LOVE JANE' - your best guess is that they were intelligently arranged

And if instead they spelled something in another script, in another language you would never know.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

"the question is whether it is a long term advantage"

exactly! if it takes a long term for the advantage (natural selection) to present itself over many generations, then what phenomena is preserving this slight advantage meanwhile? Remembering that in the vast majority of situations in the wild, most genetic lines die out regardless? your own natural anticipation and desire to preserve that small advantage- it works in thought experiments, not in cold hard algorithms

I don't know whether that mutation has a small advantage or not - but in any case, there's no point my having any 'anticipation and desire to preserve' a mutation - it will persist or not regardless. There are probably reasons why gorillas don't have more offspring - for example, an extra infant may be one too many mouths to feed.

The mutation will continue down subsequent generations unless it is seriously detrimental. If it provides a long term advantage those carrying it will eventually predominate in the population. If it has a long term disadvantage, it will peter out. If it is neutral it may persist, drifting in the population until other changes make it advantageous or disadvantageous, or its lineage dies out for other reasons.

The cold hard algorithms have been used in hundreds of thousands of calculations and coded into thousands of evolutionary simulations, all consistent with the theory - and with what is observed in nature. Population genetics is a heavily mathematical field, and can readily be validated against the genetics of natural populations:

"Before the advent of population genetics, many biologists doubted that small differences in fitness were sufficient to make a large difference to evolution" Wikipedia

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

if the sticks or stones spell 'HELP' or 'I LOVE JANE' - your best guess is that they were intelligently arranged

So you can guess the information is 'specifying' only if it matches something you already know is the product of intelligence?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And if instead they spelled something in another script, in another language you would never know.

correct

that would be a false negative

if we looked at a randomly generated sequence of 1s and 0s beside a chunk of machine code, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference either.

And Darwin could not observe the digital code in DNA

But false positives become exponentially less likely with the quality and quantity of information you can identify,

the info in DNA is vast, in any other context it would be considered proof beyond reasonable doubt that the source was intelligent

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So you can guess the information is 'specifying' only if it matches something you already know is the product of intelligence?

as in above post ^, of course you can have false negatives, but positives are extremely conclusive after only a very small amount of detectable info

having said that - it's not about matching anything that you might recognize as product of intelligence, but specifically information, because that is far more mathematically objective and conclusive

e.g. a rough pyramidal hill can be ,and has been, mistaken for a natural object and vice versa- but finding hieroglyphs carved on it makes intelligence conclusive

 

[Speedwell]

correct

that would be a false negative

if we looked at a randomly generated sequence of 1s and 0s beside a chunk of machine code, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference either.

And Darwin could not observe the digital code in DNA

But false positives become exponentially less likely with the quality and quantity of information you can identify,

Having failed to provide us with quantitative measure of this information you are talking about, you now want to talk about qualitative measures?

the info in DNA is vast, in any other context it would be considered proof beyond reasonable doubt that the source was intelligent

Right. According to you, we only reject the concept with respect to the theory of evolution, because we're afraid of discovering God. How you explain why most Christians reject ID as well would make for an interesting post, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't know whether that mutation has a small advantage or not - but in any case, there's no point my having any 'anticipation and desire to preserve' a mutation - it will persist or not regardless. There are probably reasons why gorillas don't have more offspring - for example, an extra infant may be one too many mouths to feed.

The mutation will continue down subsequent generations unless it is seriously detrimental.

absolutely not, I'd say this is an extremely common flaw in our 'anticipatory' logic that computer modelling exposes
a rabbit could be born with a mutation that grants rabbit superpowers; could run twice as fast, jump twice as high- and still die of disease before reaching sexual maturity and passing that mutation on.
the Darwinian algorithm cares not a jot if it wasted a great advantage- it has no goal to improve the species.

If it provides a long term advantage those carrying it will eventually predominate in the population.

eventually, of course IF preserved, but in the wild most genetic lines die out regardless- so what mechanism would be preserving this small advantage meanwhile if natural selection has not had time to pay off yet?

there's the catch 22, significant advantages are extremely hard to come by accidentally, and insignificant advantages are simply.. insignificant. meanwhile of course the vast majority are deleterious

this matches what we see in the fossil record - very little evidence of any gradual improvement occurring over time

 

[pitabread]

the info in DNA is vast, in any other context it would be considered proof beyond reasonable doubt that the source was intelligent

If the information in DNA is "vast", what is the measurement by which you made that determination?

And no word salads about DNA being like computers or language or other nonsense. Talk about how you specifically measure the information in DNA.