The form and context is also important - human carving was known long before the Rosetta stone was found, and the form of the crucial information was also known (Ancient Greek).Well they absolutely are if you are an archeologist!- many objects are identified as a probably a product of intelligence v nature by simply being similar to examples already found. But the point being there are more definitive measures than mere similarity.
Archeologists can absolutely confirm creative intelligence in objects like the Rosetta Stone at a mere glance- not because of their physical medium or shape, but from information that the medium has been used to describe.
So again it is the information which is the more definitive evidence rather than the medium- which may or may not also constitute evidence.
So, not only do neither of those distinguishing features apply to DNA or its supporting functional frameworks, but we have clear evidence for how the information in that system develops, from elaborating the mechanisms involved, observing and emulating their function, and determining the history of their operation through phylogenetics.
It would be clearly absurd to expect every developmental sequence in nature to be established by a full real-time lab demonstration. We know how such sequences progress on evolutionary, geological, or cosmological scales by the scientific method - making observations and testing hypotheses.... granted abiogenesis as a freebie- in demonstrating the claim that humans evolved from a bacteria like organism through natural selection acting on random mutation- we have got as far as more bacteria.. that leaves quite a bit to the imagination.
We know, in some detail, how the universe developed, how stars develop and their lifecycles, how the Earth has developed, how the climate has changed, how the continents have skated around on its surface, how mountain ranges have risen and fallen, and so-on; all this from a variety of indirect evidence.
The evidence we have for common descent is as conclusive as that for those other discoveries, arguably more so. The same materials, the same building blocks, the same genetic code, the same mechanisms, the same functions, all showing evidence of modification over time in a pattern consistent with the nested hierarchy we'd expect - crucial core features preserved almost unchanged down the ages, and every creature carrying a partial history of their lineage in their anatomy, physiology, and genetics. Every significant discovery in every relevant field for the last 150 years has confirmed this - even fields that did not exist when the theory was first proposed are in full agreement.
Evolution is genetic change in populations over generations. It need not involve significant morphological change.And yet Horseshoe crabs apparently lived though almost half a billion years of environmental change in virtual stasis.. how would you reconcile your statement with this observation?
Horseshoe crabs have evolved, just as coelocanths, sharks, etc., have. They haven't made major morphological changes - presumably, like other creatures that have retained their gross morphology over geological time, they are well-adapted to a relatively stable niche.
See Molecular Evolutionary Patterns in Horseshoe Crabs.
"Both absolute and relative rate tests suggest a moderate slowdown in sequence evolution in horseshoe crabs."
"...the current results show that large numbers of molecular characters distinguish even these most morphologically conservative of organisms. Furthermore, comparisons against previously published mitochondrial sequence data in the morphologically dynamic hermit crab-king crab complex demonstrates that striking heterogeneity in levels of morphotypic differentiation can characterize Arthropod lineages at similar magnitudes of molecular divergence."
"...the current results show that large numbers of molecular characters distinguish even these most morphologically conservative of organisms. Furthermore, comparisons against previously published mitochondrial sequence data in the morphologically dynamic hermit crab-king crab complex demonstrates that striking heterogeneity in levels of morphotypic differentiation can characterize Arthropod lineages at similar magnitudes of molecular divergence."
IOW, hermit crabs show plenty of genetic variety despite looking very similar, and creatures in related lineages can look very different with similar levels of genetic variation.
Last edited:
Upvote
0