Some random discussion on evolution...

xianghua said:

how is that different? we know that gears need intelligent. we know that it cant be human. thus we can conclude that non-human intelligent made these gears.

Click to expand...

If we found non-biological gears in a meteorite or in a lunar or Martian rock, we should know, as you say, that these gears could not have been manufactured by humans; therefore they must have been made by intelligent aliens. However, no such gears have ever been found in any extra-terrestrial material, and there is as yet no independent evidence for the existence of aliens.

As many people have already explained to you, biological gears are different. Scientists already know that complex biological systems develop by a gradual process of descent with modification, and there is no need for an intelligent designer to explain them. The fact that biological gears resemble man-made gears is irrelevant, since the processes by which they are produced are quite different.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

If you want direct empirical evidence that Darwinian evolutionary processes can produce effective and efficient results (I would call them 'designs' in a less teleologically oriented forum), a nice example is the NASA evolved antenna, a very efficient end product that no human would have designed:

Click to expand...

I am familiar with that- and I have used random variation and selection as a design strategy myself- specifically in calculating the most efficient way for a car to go around a given track.

in both cases we are using intelligent design to set the experiment up, we are introducing desired selection traits upfront- and the antenna will never be anything but an antenna, it is never going to start contemplating the meaning of it's own existence- no matter how long you give it!

I do take your point and it's an interesting example, but as I have said, random variation is a very useful design feature within specific limits that must first be defined for it to work - not a comprehensive design mechanism

Astrophile said:

the processes by which they are produced are quite different.

Click to expand...

are they?

coded digital information describing how to manufacture the gears is read by automated mechanisms which gather the raw materials and assemble and place the parts at the proper stage of assembly according to the instructions

Am I talking about an auto factory floor or microbiology?

We only know of one mechanism by which such systems are created, and it's not blind luck!

Guy Threepwood said:

are they?

coded digital information describing how to manufacture the gears is read by automated mechanisms which gather the raw materials and assemble and place the parts at the proper stage of assembly according to the instructions

Am I talking about an auto factory floor or microbiology?

We only know of one mechanism by which such systems are created, and it's not blind luck!

Click to expand...

Blind luck?

Speedwell said:

Blind luck?

Click to expand...

aka random mutation

Guy Threepwood said:

aka random mutation

Click to expand...

Of course, evolution proceeds on randomly distributed (think: bell curve) variation, not random mutation.

Guy Threepwood said:

... we are using intelligent design to set the experiment up, we are introducing desired selection traits upfront

Click to expand...

Seriously? Of course we set it up - if we didn't set up the system nothing would happen. We model the system on Darwinian evolution and we set the selection criteria because we have a particular goal. In nature the selection pressures (criteria) are the environmental and genetic influences on 'fitness', i.e. reproductive success, and there is no goal.

... the antenna will never be anything but an antenna, it is never going to start contemplating the meaning of it's own existence- no matter how long you give it!

Click to expand...

Now I'm almost certain you're not being serious...

For the lurkers: it doesn't start out as a functioning antenna, just a straight or randomly bent piece of wire. The evolutionary process is what turns it from something that is useless as an antenna into a very efficient antenna. It doesn't evolve into something else once it becomes an antenna because the selection criteria are static and process is stopped when further improvement, judged by those criteria, is negligible. In the natural world, the selection pressures change over time and the process is continuous.

I do take your point and it's an interesting example, but as I have said, random variation is a very useful design feature within specific limits that must first be defined for it to work - not a comprehensive design mechanism

Click to expand...

Random variation is only part of the story - selection pressure is crucial.

Guy Threepwood said:

"We have a known process (evolution)"

Well we have one known process which can great gears (creative intelligence) and also a speculative theory...(evolution) which some argue might be able to also

Click to expand...

The known process for the design and manufacture of gears involves human produced gears made out of materials like metal, plastic and sometimes less common materials like wood.

So if the answer is that the gears in Issus coleoptratus are designed and created in the same manner, then please point me to the factories that are producing Issus coleoptratus?

we know that gears can be designed through creative agency- that is utterly unambiguous, and nobody disputes this, correct?

Click to expand...

We know that gears designed and manufactured by human beings are a result of creative agency. We cannot say the same about the gears in Issus coleoptratus.

To suggest they are equivalent is to invoke the False equivalence fallacy. This is what xianghua's arguments invariability boil down to.

whether or not the same can be designed by natural processes... it's certainly an interesting claim, but can we say we know? with the same level of confidence? of course not.

Click to expand...

We have a known process by which biological organisms change over time. We call that process evolution.

Do we have the same sort of known process by which biological organisms are artificially modified by non-human intervention? Nope.

Or in the case of arguing that Issus coleoptratus is the result of human genetic engineering, where is the evidence to support that case?

xianghua said:

you cant conclude design if you will see a real flying saucer?

Click to expand...

What is a "real flying saucer"?

pitabread said:

The known process for the design and manufacture of gears involves human produced gears made out of materials like metal, plastic and sometimes less common materials like wood.

So if the answer is that the gears in Issus coleoptratus are designed and created in the same manner, then please point me to the factories that are producing Issus coleoptratus?

Click to expand...

As above: coded digital information describing how to manufacture the gears is read by automated mechanisms which gather the raw materials and assemble and place the parts at the proper stage of assembly according to the instructions

This is true in both factories- those in Detroit and those in the cell

We know that gears designed and manufactured by human beings are a result of creative agency. We cannot say the same about the gears in Issus coleoptratus.

To suggest they are equivalent is to invoke the False equivalence fallacy. This is what xianghua's arguments invariability boil down to.]

Click to expand...

I agree here, and I would not be so definitive as our friend. My point was that we know such gears- and more relevantly- similar manufacturing mechanisms, can be produced through creative agency, we don't yet know with anything like as much certainty- that natural mechanisms can achieve the same- my money is on 'no'

We have a known process by which biological organisms change over time. We call that process evolution.

Click to expand...

to be fair- we have a known theory... one that is pretty tough to test beyond very superficial changes..

Do we have the same sort of known process by which biological organisms are artificially modified by non-human intervention? Nope.

Click to expand...

I'd question the dichotomy there- modified by pre-existing instructions, as opposed to random mutation- non Darwinian evolution if you like is a possibility- and where the instructions came from- is another question

Guy Threepwood said:

As above: coded digital information describing how to manufacture the gears is read by automated mechanisms which gather the raw materials and assemble and place the parts at the proper stage of assembly according to the instructions

This is true in both factories- those in Detroit and those in the cell

Click to expand...

You're making an argument from analogy again. Not going to work, DNA is not a blueprint akin to what you'd find in a factory. DNA is biochemistry.

Moreover we know of mechanisms that change DNA and that changes in DNA can result in the expression of different traits in biological organisms.

Once again, it boils down to a known process: evolution.

we don't yet know with anything like as much certainty- that natural mechanisms can achieve the same- my money is on 'no'

Click to expand...

Until we have an alternative for a process by which biological organisms are either created and/or modified over time, biological evolution is the only explanation on the table.

to be fair- we have a known theory... one that is pretty tough to test beyond very superficial changes..

Click to expand...

The theory of evolution explains the process of evolution.

I'd question the dichotomy there- modified by pre-existing instructions, as opposed to random mutation- non Darwinian evolution if you like is a possibility- and where the instructions came from- is another question

Click to expand...

If you want to argue that the process by which organisms evolve is deterministic via pre-existing instructions in DNA (or whereever), then the onus is on you to produce evidence of that.

pitabread said:

You're making an argument from analogy again. Not going to work, DNA is not a blueprint akin to what you'd find in a factory. DNA is biochemistry.

Click to expand...

coded digital information describing how to manufacture the gears is read by automated mechanisms which gather the raw materials and assemble and place the parts at the proper stage of assembly according to the instructions

^ that's not a mere analogy- it is a literal description, entirely interchangeable with our own factories

Moreover we know of mechanisms that change DNA and that changes in DNA can result in the expression of different traits in biological organisms.
Once again, it boils down to a known process: evolution.

Click to expand...

If you want to argue that the process by which organisms evolve is deterministic via pre-existing instructions in DNA (or whereever), then the onus is on you to produce evidence of that.

Click to expand...

Actually I think it's fair to say that this is fairly well established to an increasing degree in microbiology- in fact it is even used now as a secular argument (we don't need divine intervention, because the required information is pre-existing)

it begs the question obviously on the source of the info, but either way, Darwinism it aint

Once again, it boils down to a known process: evolution.

Until we have an alternative for a process by which biological organisms are either created and/or modified over time, biological evolution is the only explanation on the table.

The theory of evolution explains the process of evolution.

Click to expand...

though once again ToE is only 'known' in the empirical sense to be responsible for very superficial changes in what seem to be predetermined ranges of adaptation- something that is simply a sensible design feature for anything in a changing and varying environment.

as far as demonstrating how bacteria can change into human beings through random mutation.., we are still stuck at bacteria remaining bacteria no matter how much pressure is applied, I think more and more biologists are looking for a better explanation these days

Guy Threepwood said:

coded digital information describing how to manufacture the gears is read by automated mechanisms which gather the raw materials and assemble and place the parts at the proper stage of assembly according to the instructions

^ that's not a mere analogy- it is a literal description, entirely interchangeable with our own factories





Actually I think it's fair to say that this is fairly well established to an increasing degree in microbiology- in fact it is even used now as a secular argument (we don't need divine intervention, because the required information is pre-existing)

it begs the question obviously on the source of the info, but either way, Darwinism it aint



though once again ToE is only 'known' in the empirical sense to be responsible for very superficial changes in what seem to be predetermined ranges of adaptation- something that is simply a sensible design feature for anything in a changing and varying environment.

as far as demonstrating how bacteria can change into human beings through random mutation.., we are still stuck at bacteria remaining bacteria no matter how much pressure is applied, I think more and more biologists are looking for a better explanation these days

Click to expand...

Random variaton.

Guy Threepwood said:

coded digital information describing how to manufacture the gears is read by automated mechanisms which gather the raw materials and assemble and place the parts at the proper stage of assembly according to the instructions

^ that's not a mere analogy- it is a literal description, entirely interchangeable with our own factories

Click to expand...

The description at a high level might be interchangeable but it doesn't mean the processes are functionally the same.

it begs the question obviously on the source of the info, but either way, Darwinism it aint

Click to expand...

In the context of "Darwinism" being what Darwin's original theory of evolution, correct only because the theory of evolution has come along way in the last 150 years since Darwin's time.

Arguing against Darwin at this stage is a moot cause. It's like arguing against Newtonian mechanics as being the final say on everything related to physics.

though once again ToE is only 'known' in the empirical sense to be responsible for very superficial changes in what seem to be predetermined ranges of adaptation- something that is simply a sensible design feature for anything in a changing and varying environment.

Click to expand...

You haven't demonstrated that there are "predetermined ranges of adaptation".

as far as demonstrating how bacteria can change into human beings through random mutation.., we are still stuck at bacteria remaining bacteria no matter how much pressure is applied, I think more and more biologists are looking for a better explanation these days

Click to expand...

First, bacteria represent an entire kingdom of life. There's actually incredible diversity with that kingdom of life. Saying that bacteria remain bacteria is like saying that eukaryotes remain eukaryotes. It's not a particularly meaningful statement.

Second, I don't know what "stuck" you are referring to. As per the other discussion there are practical limits to direct laboratory experiments, but that's just a practical limitation. We don't have the ability to recreate ~4 billion years of the entirety of the history of life on Earth in a lab and it's naive to think we otherwise should be able to do that.

Likewise, I previously linked that scientists can and have done experiments even including things like demonstrating the first stages of multicellularity in a lab. Which hardly sounds like they are "stuck" on anything.

pitabread said:

The description at a high level might be interchangeable but it doesn't mean the processes are functionally the same.

Click to expand...

well yes, cells have the clear advantage of using non-union labor for the work
but c'mon Pitabread, surely you take my point here- it's a pretty interesting similarity

In the context of "Darwinism" being what Darwin's original theory of evolution, correct only because the theory of evolution has come along way in the last 150 years since Darwin's time.

Arguing against Darwin at this stage is a moot cause. It's like arguing against Newtonian mechanics as being the final say on everything related to physics.

Click to expand...

I would agree, Darwinian evolution is as inadequate in explaining life in the 21st C as Newtonian physics in explaining physical reality, but many DO still tout it as the final say

You haven't demonstrated that there are "predetermined ranges of adaptation".

Click to expand...

'demonstrate' is a tall order- we can't demonstrate adaptation doing much of anything- I'm arguing that the hierarchical structure of DNA explains why- no quick easy demo I concede. But things are moving fast- epigenetics suggests that gene sequence mutation doesn't cut it, junk DNA is not junk- something else is going on here that nobody fully understands yet

First, bacteria represent an entire kingdom of life. There's actually incredible diversity with that kingdom of life. Saying that bacteria remain bacteria is like saying that eukaryotes remain eukaryotes. It's not a particularly meaningful statement.

Second, I don't know what "stuck" you are referring to. As per the other discussion there are practical limits to direct laboratory experiments, but that's just a practical limitation. We don't have the ability to recreate ~4 billion years of the entirety of the history of life on Earth in a lab and it's naive to think we otherwise should be able to do that.

Likewise, I previously linked that scientists can and have done experiments even including things like demonstrating the first stages of multicellularity in a lab. Which hardly sounds like they are "stuck" on anything.

Click to expand...

That's fair enough- but an inherent inability to re-create the claim in an experiment- is not a strength in a theory- it's a weakness.

Either way we are trying to reconstruct unrepeatable events that occurred billions of years ago- I can't show you macro evolution occurring by any other method either- so we are all taking our best guesses right?

must run for now.. I much appreciate your thoughtful responses

Guy Threepwood said:

well yes, cells have the clear advantage of using non-union labor for the work but c'mon Pitabread, surely you take my point here- it's a pretty interesting similarity

Click to expand...

At a conceptual level sure, but that's where it ends. When you get into the details, the similarities end pretty quick.

I would agree, Darwinian evolution is as inadequate in explaining life in the 21st C as Newtonian physics in explaining physical reality, but many DO still tout it as the final say

Click to expand...

I'm not aware of anyone who does that and certainly not biologists.

'demonstrate' is a tall order- we can't demonstrate adaptation doing much of anything- I'm arguing that the hierarchical structure of DNA explains why- no quick easy demo I concede. But things are moving fast- epigenetics suggests that gene sequence mutation doesn't cut it, junk DNA is not junk- something else is going on here that nobody fully understands yet

Click to expand...

Creationists are the ones claiming there are certain barriers in the evolution of organisms (besides practical physical limits), but when push comes to shove they can never demonstrate what they claim.

Conversely I find the sheer biodiversity of organisms on Earth speaks to the remarkable variability possible in nature.

That's fair enough- but an inherent inability to re-create the claim in an experiment- is not a strength in a theory- it's a weakness.

Click to expand...

It's neither. It's just a practical reality of the limitations of trying to demonstrate everything experimentally.

Fortunately there are other approaches to such challenges from a scientific perspective.

Either way we are trying to reconstruct unrepeatable events that occurred billions of years ago- I can't show you macro evolution occurring by any other method either- so we are all taking our best guesses right?

Click to expand...

No, not guesses. Testable hypotheses.

must run for now.. I much appreciate your thoughtful responses

Click to expand...

Same.

xianghua said:

so according to you some gears arent the result of design. ok. but who has the burdon of proof in that case?

Click to expand...

How about we establish a clear definition of what criteria need to be met to satisfy the claim "designed", and then if we find any gears that DON'T meet those criteria, we can use them as an example of gears that aren't designed?

Guy Threepwood said:

in both cases we are using intelligent design to set the experiment up

Click to expand...

So, with your obvious extensive background in science, perhaps you can describe how we run an experiment that does not rely on "intelligently-designed" experiments?

And do you equate human "intelligent design" with the Intelligent Designer put forth by cryptic creationists?

Guy Threepwood said:

I would argue the opposite, but neither can be definitively proven.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, you are suggesting - in all seriousness - that there is more evidence for a deity (and presumably the Christian deity) than there is for evolution?
Note: it is a given that science is not in the business of proving things.

Guy Threepwood said:

That's where faith comes in, I acknowledge faith in my beliefs, I don't claim fact

'Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself as such'

Click to expand...

I applaud your honesty. You are agreeing that blind faith is believing something because you think it is true and regular faith is recognising that you believe something just because you believe it.

Guy Threepwood said:

I would agree, Darwinian evolution is as inadequate in explaining life in the 21st C

Click to expand...

Darwinian evolution does not and was never meant to "explain life". Red herring.

junk DNA is not junk- something else is going on here that nobody fully understands yet

Click to expand...

Much of it is, depending on your definition of "junk."
Please do not say you accept the initial ENCODE hype....