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

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Why do you keep shooting yourself in the foot? Bacteria are highly evolved life. They cannot "morph into man". It is an error to think of other life as "less evolved". All life has an over three billion year history of evolution.

 

[Shemjaza]

And we can recognize intelligence in the arrangement of petals by birds of paradise, whale songs, or hypothetically in the radio signals from outer space- while it might be a useful shortcut in some circumstances, there is no 'human comparison' necessary to acknowledge the fingerprints of creative intelligence itself

How?

Specifically and empirically how do we recognise this intelligence?

For human mechanisms and hypothetical alien signals we look for stuff we could make and try to determine purpose given very understandable purposes.

How do you detect design in DNA and not in complex rock structures?
If you are able to detect design, or not, in those how do you determine if anything isn't designed?

 

[Frank Robert]

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

Do you really need to ask where?

 

[Frank Robert]

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

I won't argue that evolution always gets it right, just the opposite: See: Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches | Nathan Lents. Yet, even if life and humans were by way of intelligent design those errors are still there.

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

No disagreement, mutations are random. Now you need to make a case that selection is random.

almost makes it sound like 'beneficial' mutations are somehow in the same neighborhood of probability as deleterious ones-

We already agreed that mutations are random. Yet, whether beneficial or not they come about the same mechanisms.

deleterious vastly outnumber the advantageous,

Yes they do. Why do you think that deleterious mutations do not manifest themselves within a population the way beneficial mutations do?

and as above,rare mutations that may be deemed 'beneficial' in certain environments, are overwhelmingly the result of a loss of functional information

You are entitled to your opinion that it is overwhelming, but even so, I do agree that in certain environments natural loss-of-function mutation is a strategy for adaptation.

 

[Shemjaza]

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.

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



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

Do you have an objective method of measuring "functional information"?

Because if you don't, then it's impossible to describe a change in it as a loss.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you have an objective method of measuring "functional information"?

Because if you don't, then it's impossible to describe a change in it as a loss.

All these points have been made before and ignored or blustered around. I've yet to see a response to the 'loss of functional information' thanks to a mutation, that is restored by a later mutation that reverses the first - if 'functional information' was lost initially, 'functional information' was gained later. Another unanswered example is of a mutation that results in a loss of one beneficial function and the gain of another - is that loss or gain of 'functional information'?

 

[Bradskii]

All these points have been made before and ignored or blustered around. I've yet to see a response to the 'loss of functional information' thanks to a mutation, that is restored by a later mutation that reverses the first - if 'functional information' was lost initially, 'functional information' was gained later. Another unanswered example is of a mutation that results in a loss of one beneficial function and the gain of another - is that loss or gain of 'functional information'?

It's apparently quite common:

'Genes often mutate and lose their natural or synthetic function over long-term evolution, which could be good if that stops drug resistance of infectious microbes or cancer. A new study by Stony Brook University researchers, published online in PNAS, shows that evolution can exploit positive feedback (PF) within cells to restore gene function. Such repair by evolution may provide a basis for regaining lost gene function, which has implications in medicine and other scientific endeavors.' Study Shows Evolution Turns Genes Back On to Regain Function

Notwithstanding that literally any mutation that has a positive effect has a compensatory negative effect. So you could say that if animal has a mutation whereby it has lost the ability to grow a thick coat it's a negative. But it's a plus if the environment is getting warmer.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Do you have an objective method of measuring "functional information"?

Absolutely- if you corrupt it, it no longer performs it's function. Pretty straightforward

This applies to the software running this forum, blueprints, DNA, a printed book, carvings on the Rosetta Stone

There are many grey areas in science, but this really isn't one of them

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

'pure blind chance' is actually the defining characteristic of Darwinism

Consider other theories of evolution;

Lamarckism
Creationism
Intelligent design
Natural engineering

All of these recognize natural selection as a given, survival of the fittest has never been controversial, only the arrival.

So what differentiates between them is their theory of the generative, the origination of that which selection has to act upon.

All of these have various explanations for that origination, only Darwinism relies on 'pure blind chance' aka random mutations

 

[Guy Threepwood]

To clarify:

At some point between a single celled (bacteria like) organism and a human being- some evolution must take place.

Darwinism claims that this can occur through random corruption of the genetic information within that less evolved life form.

At least that is the modern synthesis of the Victorian age theory.

What we actually observe scientifically, empirically though, is that mutations are overwhelmingly destructive- they lead to decline over time, fish losing sight, birds losing flight, bacteria losing the ability to digest certain compounds etc etc.

This concurs with the fossil record wherein new biological form generally appears suddenly and in complete form, then remains in stasis and/or decline until extinction- or it is still here.

 

[tas8831]

Well yes, you might invalidate the belief that Roman architecture was designed.. but only if you followed the same rationale as ToE.

i.e. since we can directly observe Roman architecture changing over time through destructive natural forces, we can extrapolate this over thousands of years, to conclude that Pompeii was probably originally constructed by volcanoes, earthquakes and erosion.

Go away.

 

[tas8831]

How?

Specifically and empirically how do we recognise this intelligence?

For human mechanisms and hypothetical alien signals we look for stuff we could make and try to determine purpose given very understandable purposes.

How do you detect design in DNA and not in complex rock structures?
If you are able to detect design, or not, in those how do you determine if anything isn't designed?

He has no answers. He is just here to push his 'faith.' He will soon be mysteriously gone for another few months, to come back for a few self-righteous but silly drive-bys.

 

[tas8831]

'pure blind chance' is actually the defining characteristic of Darwinism

Why do you, despite your obviously false claims of being relevantly educated, continue to engage in these fabrications/embellishments?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I won't argue that evolution always gets it right, just the opposite: See: Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches | Nathan Lents. Yet, even if life and humans were by way of intelligent design those errors are still there.

'errors' can be a rather subjective label.. a caveman might look at a smart phone and say- what a lousy arrowhead..

But to take the first example of imperfection in the book's summary 'eyes'

I remember being taught this (bad) 'design argument' in school as a convincing argument for Darwinian evolution. Why would light have to pass through extra layers of tissue before hitting receptors? After all cephalopods don't have this.

Many of these 'bad design' examples date back to fairly crude Victorian age dissections, long before it was discovered that the light is passing through highly specialized elongated cells which act as fiber-optic filters, very efficiently filtering out blue on bright days and allowing us a better color balance of daylight.

And of course if you are hunting colorless objects at great depths and in near darkness.. you'd want every photon you can get.. so that's good design all round

Ironically the Victorian age misunderstanding prevails to this day as a 'bad design' argument in schools, whereas teaching the 21st C scientific knowledge as a 'good design' argument could literally get you taken away in handcuffs in the US!

No disagreement, mutations are random. Now you need to make a case that selection is random.

you can select exactly nothing into existence. That leaves all creation to 'pure blind chance' (according to Darwinism)

We already agreed that mutations are random. Yet, whether beneficial or not they come about the same mechanisms.
Yes they do. Why do you think that deleterious mutations do not manifest themselves within a population the way beneficial mutations do?
You are entitled to your opinion that it is overwhelming, but even so, I do agree that in certain environments natural loss-of-function mutation is a strategy for adaptation.

I think we agree on a lot here (what fun is that?! )

But again, natural selection is not at issue.

We agree that superior designs will tend to outperform, outlast, and hence be replicated in higher numbers than inferior ones- that's why we see more Ford Mustangs than Pintos on the road, and would apply likewise (for a creationist) to the progeny of animals leaving the ark.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

All these points have been made before and ignored or blustered around. I've yet to see a response to the 'loss of functional information' thanks to a mutation, that is restored by a later mutation that reverses the first - if 'functional information' was lost initially, 'functional information' was gained later. Another unanswered example is of a mutation that results in a loss of one beneficial function and the gain of another - is that loss or gain of 'functional information'?

The point being, no matter the subjective/semantic debate over what is beneficial or not, you clearly cannot create a human being through simply corrupting or 'turning off and on' genetic information already existing in a single celled bacteria.

At some point you need to somehow introduce vast new volumes of entirely novel functional genetic information. That such a process exists is purely demanded by the theory itself, not any empirical evidence.

Unless of course the information is actually pre-existing in some sort of compressed/encoded form. And some secular scientists are increasingly relying on this to get over some of the early humps- But Darwinism that aint.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

He has no answers. He is just here to push his 'faith.' He will soon be mysteriously gone for another few months, to come back for a few self-righteous but silly drive-bys.

Well take it as a compliment. After all, it is well thought-out and challenging logical counter-arguments, such as yours, that keep me coming back.

 

[tas8831]

The point being, no matter the subjective/semantic debate over what is beneficial or not, you clearly cannot create a human being through simply corrupting or 'turning off and on' genetic information already existing in a single celled bacteria.

Assertions are cool.

Pity that this guy is just another PRATT-spewing propagandist.
There must be some kind of weird psychological issue with creationists like Guy here - people who have been at the game for years yet still do not understand how frequently they rely on logical fallacies, errors, etc.

 

[tas8831]

Well take it as a compliment. After all, it is well thought-out and challenging logical counter-arguments, such as yours, that keep me coming back.

Yet you rarely actually address the points. You regurgitate standard creationist nonsense and rely on silly strawmen like - "you clearly cannot create a human being through simply corrupting or 'turning off and on' genetic information already existing in a single celled bacteria.".

Your use of loaded terms like a layman would use says much, too.
Seeing as how you did not even respond to the OP:

Many creationists (and sadly, some biologists) seem to believe that 'macroevolution' is substantively different from 'microevolution.'

Short answer - it isn't, it is just many rounds of microevolution resulting in speciation.

Creationist propaganda site "CreationWiki" states:

Macroevolution is a purely theoretical biological process thought to produce relatively large (macro) evolutionary change within biological organisms. The term is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level".

Not surprising that such people would lie to their target flock. Surprising that so many take it at face value.

From a reliable source, we see that 'macroevolution' is:

"One of the most important tenets of the theory forged during the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s was that "macroevolutionary" differences among organisms - those that distinguish higher taxa - arise from the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found within species."
- "Evolutionary Biology, 3rd Ed." 1998, p. 477. D. Futuyma.

That is, macroevolution is produced via multiple rounds of speciation. Or put another way, macroevolution is a pattern created by multiple rounds of speciation.

Macroevolution is NOT 'an event' that needs to be 're-created.' It is an observed pattern.​

I can see that you are not a serious person.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How?

Specifically and empirically how do we recognise this intelligence?

Again you could ask an archeologist or forensic scientist- i.e. it is a fairly disciplined process- not merely 'intuition'- even if that might be correct. And not exclusive to biology or DNA
(but more below)

How do you detect design in DNA and not in complex rock structures?

I think you point to a very good (and often confused) point about complexity.

If we dump two separate piles of 100 bricks from a loader, then we build a 10 x 10 wall from one of those piles. Which pattern is more complex?

To describe the pile, I would need to specify the x,y and z coordinates of each brick's center, and then specify the rotation about each axis- 6 data points for each brick = 600 numbers to describe the pile. Then to describe how to re-create that pile, you would need a very precise order in which the bricks must be placed or the end result would be impossible.

The wall needs only very simple instructions, place 10 end to end, repeat on top of the last layer till out of bricks.. not the most architecturally sound design but you get the point

i.e. the information problem in DNA is not about mere complexity but specificity

The wall specifies not only a pile of bricks, but something purposeful beyond that.

Just asa gambler playing 3 royal flushes in a row, the specificity of the result raises the probability of something besides 'chance' at work.

If you are able to detect design, or not, in those how do you determine if anything isn't designed?

As above, a hand of cards specifying no value, can be adequately accounted for by the random shuffling of the deck.

And in the wider perspective, we're talking about the chance assembly of chemistry and physics constructed according to a digital blueprint- that is able to contemplate it's own existence.. a few good hands at poker is selling that a little short!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I see that @Guy Threepwood still has not shown how DNA is the creation of an intelligent designer.
Nor has he shown how macroevolution could not happen.