Some random discussion on evolution...

[SLP]

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

You think polymerases "gather material"?

This is the one of many problems with using analogies as evidence - one always ends up having to over-extend the analogy in the hopes that nobody will notice.

We noticed.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hmm... loyal and committed to not believing in gods...

Seems a bit odd. Were you loyal and committed to not doing the other things you didn't do?

I became skeptical of my atheist beliefs eventually, but I swore by them for decades.. so much so I used to consider them 'default' positions- not even beliefs- beliefs were 'what everyone else had'

blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Now, that's just not true. It is certainly possible for new information to come about in evolution.

How Evolution Works

of course, just not by 'natural selection' that can only select new information that has already been created somehow. Your link agrees- the creative part is left to 'mutation'- errors/ mistakes in copying existing information- there is very little creative power there

So why did you use randomness at all in your example? You've already established that you understand that the selection process in evolution is NOT random. Seems to me like you were trying to set up a straw man.

Again- random mutation is what Darwinism relies on for new information- the creative part is random (according to the theory)

Natural selection is not random, but it cannot create anything- sort of a Catch 22

 

[Speedwell]

Again- random mutation is what Darwinism relies on for new information- the creative part is random (according to the theory)

Plus genetic drift and recombination, among other things.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Because it would require building and scrapping large numbers of cars every year, which would be much more expensive than R & D.

right, the vast majority of completely random changes would be deleterious.

natural selection still works here of course, the 'fittest' car will still be chosen- e.g. the car with the broken seat warmer will be chosen over the car with the broken transmission- until the simplest functional car remains- and then is broken also- that's what the algorithm does with designed purpose and anticipation removed - it is defenseless against entropy.

i.e. 'survival of the fittest' says nothing about each successive generation being fitter - that's an easily assumed fallacy.

This is what we directly observe in life also- birds lose flight, fish lose sight, - degradation, corruption, regression... entropy

It can be modeled mathematically. It works.

only on a very superficial level- comparable to variation- and even then it shows how limited the algorithm is, once our powers of non-natural selection in anticipation of a fitter design are removed.

In the car analogy- of course we can randomly select the 'control genes' for paint color, seat material etc- and get viable variation without degradation, because the variation options are specifically designed to allow variation within a limited viable range- that's just a very logical design feature, not a design mechanism.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Plus genetic drift and recombination, among other things.

no not plus! genetic drift and recombination- involve drifting and recombination of already existing 'random mutations'-

genetic drift
"variation in the relative frequency of different genotypes in a small population, owing to the chance disappearance of particular genes as individuals die or do not reproduce."

^ this highlights the point again, random chance/ error/ mistakes- can certainly remove functional information- remove a bird's ability to fly or a fish's to see, we all understand that. Producing it int he first place? That's a much more interesting question

 

[Speedwell]

no not plus! genetic drift and recombination- involve drifting and recombination of already existing 'random mutations'-

genetic drift
"variation in the relative frequency of different genotypes in a small population, owing to the chance disappearance of particular genes as individuals die or do not reproduce."

^ this highlights the point again, random chance/ error/ mistakes- can certainly remove functional information- remove a bird's ability to fly or a fish's to see, we all understand that. Producing it int he first place? That's a much more interesting question

Aha! "Functional information." Gotcha.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Aha! "Functional information." Gotcha.

?

 

[Speedwell]

?

It means you've outed yourself. No further honest discussion is possible.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Some manufacturers do use evolutionary approaches in the design process in varying capacities.

But there are other factors to consider when it comes to mass-produced products. One of the drawbacks of the evolutionary approach is it may not produce outputs that are feasible in a mass-production scenario.

I gave a similar response to Mr Razor, - that's the point, the overwhelming majority of truly random mistakes will always be deleterious,- the only way it works is as part of the design- random selections applied and constrained to a pre-defined range of viable options:

e.g. paint color, upholstry, extra trim

or

eye color, hair length, ability to roll tongue... very important!


= adaptation as a very useful design feature, not a design mechanism, =completely different process.
and one does not extrapolate smoothly into the other

In the sense of macro evolution being the formation of distinct breeding populations (e.g. speciation) we can and have observed that.

true, but 'distinct breeding populations' is a far wider definition- I recently read about a new species of Finch being declared as evidence of 'speciation in action' purely on the basis that none of the rest of the species seemed to want to mate with it... by which definition I spent several years in college as an entirely distinct species of human.

In the case of evolutionary time frames well beyond our own life spans, sure we can't necessarily observe that. But that's where things like modeling, simulation, and other things comes into play. It can allow us to explore things that we otherwise cannot do in a practical fashion.

Scientists can even are recreate ancestral genomes to directly explore evolutionary pathways to determine how specific biological features evolved. How cool is that?

There's also the fact that life has left traces of its past history in various respects (e.g. genetics, fossils, geographical distribution, etc), which further gives us evidence of how life evolved over time.

As Raup said- if we define evolution merely as change, it has certainly changed over time, how is another question.

Let me ask you this:

If we dig down and look back at the record- and we see shared traits, common features, some vestigial features, dead ends, even some regressions, but a general trend towards more sophisticated diversification over time- what does that suggest to you about the nature of the evolutionary process?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It means you've outed yourself. No further honest discussion is possible.

as what exactly?

You don't think DNA contains functional information?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I became skeptical of my atheist beliefs eventually, but I swore by them for decades.. so much so I used to consider them 'default' positions- not even beliefs- beliefs were 'what everyone else had'

blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself

OK; sounds like you were a strong atheist, i.e. you believed a god or gods didn't exist; many atheists simply lack belief in a god or gods.

But you talk of 'atheist beliefs' - what atheist beliefs did you have apart from that?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

OK; sounds like you were a strong atheist, i.e. you believed a god or gods didn't exist; many atheists simply lack belief in a god or gods.

But you talk of 'atheist beliefs' - what atheist beliefs did you have apart from that?

I believed everything could be accounted for by 'spontaneous' as in non-intelligent/ materialistic/ naturalistic mechanisms

I simply lack that belief now!

 

[SLP]

of course, just not by 'natural selection' that can only select new information that has already been created somehow. Your link agrees- the creative part is left to 'mutation'- errors/ mistakes in copying existing information- there is very little creative power there

Yup.

I knew it ...

So I'm guessing you have ZERO biology background - it shows, by the way - the over-reliance on analogies, never providing any actual evidence, ignoring it or equivocating when it is presented by others.
And then the coup de grace - the standard "new information" and "errors" and the like.

Because, you know, you cannot randomly copy lines of computer code and expect a new program to arise! Therefore, gene duplications cannot possibly alter phenotype in a beneficial way, because that is old "information." You can't just write computer code that says 'do more of this one thing' and get a new program, nosirree - therefore, you cannot make more of something a cell is already making and see any benefit, that goes against the analogy!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I believed everything could be accounted for by 'spontaneous' as in non-intelligent/ materialistic/ naturalistic mechanisms

I simply lack that belief now!

Ah, OK - but that's not an atheist belief, per se, nor is it, strictly speaking, scientific.

 

[SLP]

blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself

Like the faith that analogies are evidence?

 

[Speedwell]

I believed everything could be accounted for by 'spontaneous' as in non-intelligent/ materialistic/ naturalistic mechanisms

I simply lack that belief now!

So do I, but I still think ID is nothing but a hoax. In general, the assertion that a "designer' (or God, which is a more honest way of putting it) exists is an unfalsifiable proposition with which evolution is entirely consistent. Those who want to make it a falsifiable proposition and set it as an alternative to evolution are without exception politically motivated. Most frequently, in my experience, it is done as an attempt to turn the defense of a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of Genesis into a cosmic struggle between theism and atheism. That is certainly the case with the Discovery Institute and its followers.

 

[SLP]

it begs the question obviously on the source of the info,

Begging the Question

aka petitio principii

(also known as: assuming the initial point, assuming the answer, chicken and the egg argument, circulus in probando, circular reasoning [form of], vicious circle)

Description: Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. Many people use the phrase “begging the question” incorrectly when they use it to mean, “prompts one to ask the question”. That is NOT the correct usage. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.​

but either way, Darwinism it aint

Right, because it goes against the computer software analogy... can't have that...

 

[SLP]

Again- random mutation is what Darwinism relies on for new information- the creative part is random (according to the theory)

Natural selection is not random, but it cannot create anything- sort of a Catch 22

Catch 22? Not even close.
Mutation provides the raw material, selection acts on it. Pretty simple, actually.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Ah, OK - but that's not an atheist belief, per se, nor is it, strictly speaking, scientific.

I suppose so, and I certainly maintained that position as an atheist- as most atheists don't you think?

"as an a-theist I have no beliefs, I simply reject yours"

That's a pretty comfortable position, because it's always easier to critique other people's beliefs rather than your own.

A theist (if defined as believing in an intelligent source) can semantically do just the same

"as an a-naturalist, I have no beliefs, I simply reject yours"

But a theist does not do this, he stands behind his positive assertion and defends it on his own merits