For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

[Frank Robert]

sticks and stones

Just to save you time and effort, I don't read past ad-hom remarks, any substantive counter arguments are always appreciated.​

I apologize for hurting your feelings. I should have been more sensitive to your beliefs

Listed below are criticisms of ID arguments regarding probability.

"Failing to acknowledge that arguments based on probability and statistics are fraught with numerous potential fallacies and errors.
Failing to rigorously define the mathematical model and probability measure space.
Failing to acknowledge that calculating a probability after the fact, and then claiming a remarkable result, is a well-known fallacy of probability reasoning (the "post-hoc" fallacy); such calculations signify absolutely nothing.
Making empirically unjustified assumptions, such as presuming that a large class of biomolecular structures are all equally likely, or that different outcomes are independent.
Presuming that a biomolecular structure came into existence "at random" via a single-shot chance assemblage of atoms. But this is not the scientific hypothesis of how they formed; instead, abundant evidence shows that they are the result of a long series of intermediate steps over the eons.
Relying on sophisticated mathematical calculations, but ignoring the fact that since the underlying probability model is an invalid description of the phenomenon in question, it does not matter in the slightest how good these mathematical calculations are.
Ignoring the fact that a very wide range of biomolecules could perform a similar function to the given biomolecule, so that the odds given against the formation of the given biomolecule are hugely exaggerated.
Ignoring the fact that biological evolution is fundamentally not a "random" process -- mutations may be random, but natural selection, the essence of evolution, is far from random.
Ignoring reams of published studies showing that evolution can and often does produce seemingly improbable structures and features.
Invoking advanced mathematical concepts (e.g., information theory), but misapplying these results in ways that render the conclusions invalid in an evolutionary biology context.
Failing to recognize that the creationist hypothesis of separate creation for each species does not resolve any probability paradoxes; instead it enormously magnifies them."

Source...​

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, it is an argument from incredulity. You say so yourself in your own comment: "Sorry- but that's just not the sort of thing that we can empirically observe spontaneously organizing itself in nature- we do see it being organized by intelligent minds though."

And again: You're still not presenting evidence for intelligent design being responsible for DNA. You just keep saying that it is but you are not showing anything. Do you understand this?

It's both, it's pointing out precisely why random error doesn't work, and also precisely why creative intelligence does.

In contrast the materialistic argument is incredulity only- ' we don't believe in a designer so nature must have done it somehow- even if we have no examples of it'


The DNA question is an information question.

We are not debating how the chemical elements that give us the biological medium are produced, we both agree up to a point, that natural mechanisms can do this- the question regards how they are organized to represent information

Just as 'HELP' in the sand- it is not the medium of sand that infers creative intelligence, but how it is being used to convey information

Do you understand this?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's both, it's pointing out precisely why random error doesn't work, and also precisely why creative intelligence does.

In contrast the materialistic argument is incredulity only- ' we don't believe in a designer so nature must have done it somehow- even if we have no examples of it'


The DNA question is an information question.

We are not debating how the chemical elements that give us the biological medium are produced, we both agree up to a point, that natural mechanisms can do this- the question regards how they are organized to represent information

Just as 'HELP' in the sand- it is not the medium of sand that infers creative intelligence, but how it is being used to convey information

Do you understand this?

I understand that you're not answering my question, plain and simple.

 

[Bradskii]

Both theories face the same problem.

Like weathering, random mutations are overwhelmingly destructive as observed, birds lose flight, fish lose sight, pigment is lost in fur etc. And in the right environment, this might well be an advantage.
Just as an ancient wall falling down, might help by giving you more sunlight when defense is no longer needed. But you see the problem re. macroevolution; you cannot turn a bacteria into a human by simply breaking stuff.

i.e. microevolution as observed and macroevolution as necessitated by the ToE, are actually two entirely opposing processes.

destructive v creative.

To keep this as simple as I possibly can...mutations are either deleterious, neutral or beneficial. The neutral do nothing. The beneficial, if sufficient to promote survivability then that mutation will propagate throughout a population and become fixed. If deleterious, if sufficient to affect the survivability in a negative way, will not propagate throughout the population.

So yeah, you're correct. You don't evolve by simply breaking stuff. You really need to learn more about the subject if you're going to argue against it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I apologize for hurting your feelings. I should have been more sensitive to your beliefs

Listed below are criticisms of ID arguments regarding probability.

"Failing to acknowledge that arguments based on probability and statistics are fraught with numerous potential fallacies and errors.
Failing to rigorously define the mathematical model and probability measure space.
Failing to acknowledge that calculating a probability after the fact, and then claiming a remarkable result, is a well-known fallacy of probability reasoning (the "post-hoc" fallacy); such calculations signify absolutely nothing.
Making empirically unjustified assumptions, such as presuming that a large class of biomolecular structures are all equally likely, or that different outcomes are independent.
Presuming that a biomolecular structure came into existence "at random" via a single-shot chance assemblage of atoms. But this is not the scientific hypothesis of how they formed; instead, abundant evidence shows that they are the result of a long series of intermediate steps over the eons.
Relying on sophisticated mathematical calculations, but ignoring the fact that since the underlying probability model is an invalid description of the phenomenon in question, it does not matter in the slightest how good these mathematical calculations are.
Ignoring the fact that a very wide range of biomolecules could perform a similar function to the given biomolecule, so that the odds given against the formation of the given biomolecule are hugely exaggerated.
Ignoring the fact that biological evolution is fundamentally not a "random" process -- mutations may be random, but natural selection, the essence of evolution, is far from random.
Ignoring reams of published studies showing that evolution can and often does produce seemingly improbable structures and features.
Invoking advanced mathematical concepts (e.g., information theory), but misapplying these results in ways that render the conclusions invalid in an evolutionary biology context.
Failing to recognize that the creationist hypothesis of separate creation for each species does not resolve any probability paradoxes; instead it enormously magnifies them."

Source...​

It's not offensive as much as just boring, it's usually a sign there is not much substantive discussion to be had.

But a lot of these criticisms refer to 'chance' and 'probability' which are key yes.

If a gambler plays 4 royal flushes in a row, we know through probability calculations that he is most likely cheating.

Likewise for explaining all the novel biological form arising in natural history, 'pure blind chance' is not technically impossible, it's just not the least improbable explanation, I submit to you!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

To keep this as simple as I possibly can...mutations are either deleterious, neutral or beneficial. The neutral do nothing. The beneficial, if sufficient to promote survivability then that mutation will propagate throughout a population and become fixed. If deleterious, if sufficient to affect the survivability in a negative way, will not propagate throughout the population.

So yeah, you're correct. You don't evolve by simply breaking stuff. You really need to learn more about the subject if you're going to argue against it.

As above, a wall falling down may be beneficial, but it is still a destructive process which cannot be used to account for that wall.

Same applies in biology, mutation, loss of function, can provide benefits in niche environments, but you cannot use the destructive process of mutation to 'chisel' a human being out of a single celled bacteria.

 

[Bradskii]

As above, a wall falling down may be beneficial, but it is still a destructive process which cannot be used to account for that wall.

Same applies in biology, mutation, loss of function, can provide benefits in niche environments, but you cannot use the destructive process of mutation to 'chisel' a human being out of a single celled bacteria.

Good grief. I thought I made it really straightforward to understand. I'm sure it was. So you must have understood what I posted. But you chose to literally ignore it and repost some nonsensical idea of how the process of evolution works.

I'm not going to repeat myself. Except to say, again, that you really need to learn the basics if you want anything like a sensible discussion.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Good grief. I thought I made it really straightforward to understand. I'm sure it was. So you must have understood what I posted. But you chose to literally ignore it and repost some nonsensical idea of how the process of evolution works.

I'm not going to repeat myself. Except to say, again, that you really need to learn the basics if you want anything like a sensible discussion.

More sticks and stones.

The feeling is not mutual, I don't think your beliefs are 'nonsense' I used to share them for several decades. The whole theory is actually rather elegant, intuitive & satisfying. But so was classical physics.. science has progressed and there is a little more to this than the superficial pop-science summary.

The problem is that even beneficial mutations are still overwhelmingly destructive when we analyze them at the informational level. Random mutation cannot be observed to account for the appearance of volumes of new functional genetic information necessary for macroevolution to take place, certainly not in the time scales involved.

In a meeting of secular scientists at the Royal Society in London recently- they framed the problem this way; that the modern synthesis of ToE still lacks a theory of the generative.

 

[Bradskii]

The problem is that even beneficial mutations are still overwhelmingly destructive when we analyze them at the informational level.

Please tell me where you got this nugget of information from. I want to know what your sources are.

 

[Frank Robert]

It's not offensive as much as just boring, it's usually a sign there is not much substantive discussion to be had.

But a lot of these criticisms refer to 'chance' and 'probability' which are key yes.

If a gambler plays 4 royal flushes in a row, we know through probability calculations that he is most likely cheating.

Different domains. There are reams of published studies showing that

Likewise for explaining all the novel biological form arising in natural history, 'pure blind chance' is not technically impossible, it's just not the least improbable explanation, I submit to you![/QUOTE]
Yes, evolution can and often does produce seemingly improbable structures and features but not blind chance. If it were then deleterious mutations would be "blindly chosen" also.

Selection pressure, in some cases over millennia plays a large role. Novel fitness traits are often, not only due to beneficial mutations, but also from an accumulation of beneficial, neutral and slightly deleterious mutations combining.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Please tell me where you got this nugget of information from. I want to know what your sources are.

It's what we actually observe across the board in nature v the theory

Birds lose flight, fish lose sight, bears lose pigment in their fur, bacteria lose the ability to digest certain chemical compounds.

All these loses through mutation may well provide a benefit in a niche environment, but they are still destructive processes- the lost features cannot be regained by the same destructive process, they cannot account for the acquisition of the original trait.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's what we actually observe across the board in nature v the theory

Birds lose flight, fish lose sight, bears lose pigment in their fur, bacteria lose the ability to digest certain chemical compounds.

All these loses through mutation may well provide a benefit in a niche environment, but they are still destructive processes- the lost features cannot be regained by the same destructive process, they cannot account for the acquisition of the original trait.

But it's not lost. The capacity of producing melanin is still there, the capacity to evolve from a wing suited to swimming to suited for flight is still there, and the capacity for sight is still there. It's just switched off.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Different domains. There are reams of published studies showing that

Likewise for explaining all the novel biological form arising in natural history, 'pure blind chance' is not technically impossible, it's just not the least improbable explanation, I submit to you!

Yes, evolution can and often does produce seemingly improbable structures and features but not blind chance. If it were then deleterious mutations would be "blindly chosen" also.

Selection pressure, in some cases over millennia plays a large role. Novel fitness traits are often, not only due to beneficial mutations, but also from an accumulation of beneficial, neutral and slightly deleterious mutations combining.[/QUOTE]

Natural selection is an inherently destructive process, a filtering mechanism, you start with a larger number of options, and end with a smaller number. i.e. the exact opposite of the Darwinian tree of life

You can 'select' exactly nothing into existence. it has to 'arise' somehow before any selection pressure can act on it.

That leaves, according to ToE, mutations, which are said to be random. aka pure blind chance

accumulation of beneficial, neutral and slightly deleterious

almost makes it sound like 'beneficial' mutations are somehow in the same neighborhood of probability as deleterious ones- deleterious vastly outnumber the advantageous, and as above, rare mutations that may be deemed 'beneficial' in certain environments, are overwhelmingly the result of a loss of functional information

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not offensive as much as just boring, it's usually a sign there is not much substantive discussion to be had.

But a lot of these criticisms refer to 'chance' and 'probability' which are key yes.

If a gambler plays 4 royal flushes in a row, we know through probability calculations that he is most likely cheating.

Likewise for explaining all the novel biological form arising in natural history, 'pure blind chance' is not technically impossible, it's just not the least improbable explanation, I submit to you!

That is a mischaracterization of how evolution occurs. When anyone tries to claim that evolution is "pure blind chance" they have already lost the debate.

 

[Bradskii]

It's what we actually observe across the board in nature v the theory

Birds lose flight, fish lose sight, bears lose pigment in their fur, bacteria lose the ability to digest certain chemical compounds.

All these loses through mutation may well provide a benefit in a niche environment, but they are still destructive processes- the lost features cannot be regained by the same destructive process, they cannot account for the acquisition of the original trait.

Please don't avoid the question. You said that 'beneficial mutations are still destructive when we examine them at the informational level'. It doesn't make sense and I don't think that you understand it. Where did you get it from?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But it's not lost. The capacity of producing melanin is still there, the capacity to evolve from a wing suited to swimming to suited for flight is still there, and the capacity for sight is still there. It's just switched off.

It has been switched off because it has become broken, just like corrupting the code behind website software- the browser knows to ignore the dysfunctional code altogether.

It doesn't come back by the same process of random corruption, cave fish don't spontaneously regain sight, because there will always be an infinitely greater number of ways to accidentally destroy functional information than to accidentally improve on it..

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It has been switched off because it has become broken, just like corrupting the code behind website software- the browser knows to ignore the dysfunctional code altogether.

It doesn't come back by the same process of random corruption, cave fish don't spontaneously regain sight, because there will always be an infinitely greater number of ways to accidentally destroy functional information than to accidentally improve on it..

Except that it's not broken. Of course cave fish won't spontaneously regain their sight, but in sufficient generations in the right environment, they would become regular seeing fish again.

You really don't know anything about evolution, do you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Selection pressure, in some cases over millennia plays a large role. Novel fitness traits are often, not only due to beneficial mutations, but also from an accumulation of beneficial, neutral and slightly deleterious mutations combining.

Yes, selection pressure eliminates traits. That is how it works. But now you are making the same error that creationists have always made and that is ignoring the role of variation. Variation introduces new traits. Both bad and good. And what is bad and what is good often depends upon the environment that they occur in. Selection works with variation and preserves the beneficial mutations and eliminates the deleterious ones. You need to pay attention to both at the same time. They work together.

Natural selection is an inherently destructive process, a filtering mechanism, you start with a larger number of options, and end with a smaller number. i.e. the exact opposite of the Darwinian tree of life

You can 'select' exactly nothing into existence. it has to 'arise' somehow before any selection pressure can act on it.

That leaves, according to ToE, mutations, which are said to be random. aka pure blind chance

And you continue to ignore the fact that variation adds traits. So what if selection eliminates deleterious traits, it does not tend to eliminate beneficial ones and we have constant source of new traits. Selection is the opposite of "blind chance".

almost makes it sound like 'beneficial' mutations are somehow in the same neighborhood of probability as deleterious ones- deleterious vastly outnumber the advantageous, and as above, rare mutations that may be deemed 'beneficial' in certain environments, are overwhelmingly the result of a loss of functional information

Nope. There is no need for that at all. It takes only a fairly small percentage of beneficial mutations for evolution to advance and they appear to be far more common than creationists realize.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Please don't avoid the question. You said that 'beneficial mutations are still destructive when we examine them at the informational level'. It doesn't make sense and I don't think that you understand it. Where did you get it from?

It's fairly common knowledge - look up antibiotic resistance yourself, some bacteria may acquire resistance through mutation, because they actually lose an ability ( losing functional genetic information) to digest certain chemical compounds, this loss immediately becomes a disadvantage in a natural environment without the antibiotic. i.e. it is an evolutionary dead end, not a mechanism by which the bacteria can gain any new function- far less morph into a human being.

 

[Bradskii]

It's fairly common knowledge - look up antibiotic resistance yourself, some bacteria may acquire resistance through mutation, because they actually lose an ability ( losing functional genetic information) to digest certain chemical compounds, this loss immediately becomes a disadvantage in a natural environment without the antibiotic. i.e. it is an evolutionary dead end, not a mechanism by which the bacteria can gain any new function- far less morph into a human being.

It's depressingly obvious that you know very little about evolution. So that quote of yours wasn't something you came up with yourself. Where are you getting your information from? It's not a hard question. Just post the links.