Some random discussion on evolution...

[Guy Threepwood]

I would suggest more blatant discontinuities (e.g. entire species that don't fit anywhere in the evolutionary tree of life). This could even include organisms with entirely novel nucleotides. Which is also something scientists have managed to do: Scientists Have Created Synthetic DNA with 4 Extra Letters



The duck-billed platypus isn't a chimeric organism. It actually fits as an extant species with characteristics owing to the earlier synapsid origins of mammals.

I'd be thinking more along the lines of something like whales with fish parts or bats with bird wings. Things where examples of features from various extant species a combined in a mish-mash of genetic design.



That would only be an issue if God also gave coyotes infrared vision.

It would definitely make for a more interesting predator-prey dynamic though...

to take as one point- it gets into a very subjective debate on what you or I would do if we were designing life- maybe you could have glow in the dark bunnies - we do of course have plenty other glow in the dark organisms which are very cool and need no infrared vision...

There are endless examples of 'bad design' which turn out to be good design we just didn't understand yet-
we are a bit like cavemen looking at a smart phone and saying 'I could design a much better arrowhead than that!

At this point it's a wash.

Scientifically, it's not even a contest. On the one hand, you have a time-tested comprehensive scientific theory of evolution complete with real-world applications derived from it (including based on evolutionary ancestral relationships; e.g. phylogenetics).

On the other hand, you have claims of design that don't really have anything cohesive to support those claims much less anything even approaching a testable scientific hypothesis. The majority of what I've seen from those claiming to argue for design (including professional ID advocates like Behe, Meyer, etc) are in fact arguments against evolution with the assumption of design as the null hypothesis. Unfortunately design is not the null hypothesis of evolution.

If people want to argue for design, IMHO, they should start by trying to determine mechanisms/processes by which design could have occurred and then work from there.

as in my previous post- in the information age, this question, like everything else in the universe, boils down to information and information systems, where did it/they come from? Arguably space/time matter/energy itself is little more than organized information, right?

And ID makes an argument very much in the affirmative here; we do know how digital information systems can be created- we increasingly understand them and can recognize their distinct fingerprints- it's an entirely tried and tested principle. We just have no idea how they could possibly be created by spontaneous processes also- in fact we can increasingly identify fundamental hurdles to it.

My point though was that you don't necessarily need to go to ID- but we do need a source for a lot of specific information in life just as chemistry and physics, to predetermine to a large extent how it all unfolds- that's almost inescapable already

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So how does the information get into the DNA? The theory of evolution has an explanation for it even if you think it is inadequate. You've got nothing.

well it doesn't, that was the topic the Royal Society meeting- that ToE still lacks a 'theory of the generative'- and if brought up, proponents are quick to point out that it doesn't even attempt to explain all the info needed to originate life in the first place - which is where the more definite problems lie if you are going to try to cover it all with spontaneous mechanisms.

On the other hand, from the ID perspective, we can demonstrate new digital information being originated and updated all the time - (even remotely by radio waves like DNA to some extent)

But that is something beside the point, if you conclude that the Rosetta stone required ID, do you really need to know how it was created to establish that?

 

[pitabread]

to take as one point- it gets into a very subjective debate on what you or I would do if we were designing life- maybe you could have glow in the dark bunnies - we do of course have plenty other glow in the dark organisms which are very cool and need no infrared vision...

Sure, there is a lot of room for subjectivity. But there is still a clear divide between things that a designer could do than evolution could not. Yet we don't have examples of those things in nature.

There are endless examples of 'bad design' which turn out to be good design we just didn't understand yet-

Like what?

Also, for the record at no point will you convince me that the design of male testes on the exterior of the body is a good design. Ever.

as in my previous post- in the information age, this question, like everything else in the universe, boils down to information and information systems, where did it/they come from? Arguably space/time matter/energy itself is little more than organized information, right?

Emergence - Wikipedia

We just have no idea how they could possibly be created by spontaneous processes also- in fact we can increasingly identify fundamental hurdles to it.

See above.

I find that ID proponents generally ignore the concept of emergent properties. I tend to get frustrated when I'm reading ID literature and authors question how things like information in DNA appeared.

If it's an emergent property of DNA, then the existence and evolution of DNA itself gives rise to information therein. No need for an external source.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sure, there is a lot of room for subjectivity. But there is still a clear divide between things that a designer could do than evolution could not. Yet we don't have examples of those things in nature.

But if it exists, like a beautiful glowing insect, or exotic bird of paradise with arguably impractical but beautiful appendages - that by your argument is 'proof' of something evolution can do , and not the whimsy of a talented artistic designer (circular in itself is it not?)

even if we have no idea how the major phyla sprung up suddenly 'as if with no evolutionary history' as Dawkins put it


I think we can make the opposite argument more objectively- all these features are built according to automated manufacturing systems according to digital instructions.

Do we have any examples of nature every creating a system like that? (abiogenesis would be entirely circular reasoning also of course)

From my point of view of course, there is very little Darwinian evolution can do, apart from provide some very superficial variation that any good design needs in a varying and changing environment...

Like what?

people used to think meteors, volcanoes, earthquakes etc were 'bad design', before we appreciated they were vital to life on Earth as we know it- I'm sure you must have some favorites?

Also, for the record at no point will you convince me that the design of male testes on the exterior of the body is a good design. Ever.

hmm- okay then I'm not going to tackle that one!

Emergence - Wikipedia



See above.

I find that ID proponents generally ignore the concept of emergent properties. I tend to get frustrated when I'm reading ID literature and authors question how things like information in DNA appeared.

If it's an emergent property of DNA, then the existence and evolution of DNA itself gives rise to information therein. No need for an external source.

Isn't that basically the watch maker argument you are giving me?

No need for a little man inside to turn the hands

i.e. automated function ≠ automated origin, the opposite argument can be better made- since we only know one source for such systems

 

[pitabread]

But if it exists, like a beautiful glowing insect, or exotic bird of paradise with arguably impractical but beautiful appendages - that by your argument is 'proof' of something evolution can do , and not the whimsy of a talented artistic designer (circular in itself is it not?)

even if we have no idea how the major phyla sprung up suddenly 'as if with no evolutionary history' as Dawkins put it

This is why I'm speaking of blatant chimeric organisms or complete genetic discontinuity. I'm talking about things where there wouldn't be an evolutionary explanation.

And if we saw patterns of such things in nature it would point to something other than evolution (e.g. design).

Yet we don't. Everything observed in biology fits with natural, evolutionary processes and the evolution of species over time.

Do we have any examples of nature every creating a system like that? (abiogenesis would be entirely circular reasoning also of course)

Why would abiogenesis be circular reasoning? I'm not following you here.

From my point of view of course, there is very little Darwinian evolution can do, apart from provide some very superficial variation that any good design needs in a varying and changing environment...

I suggest learning more about biological evolution then. Because it certain can and does do a lot. The formation of new functional genes, proteins, etc, are well documented.

"Superficial variation" is a complete mis-characterization what biologists have discovered re: evolution over the past 150+ years.

(This is also why I linked to examples of evolutionary approaches in engineering and fact they can result in superior designs compared to traditional design processes.)

people used to think meteors, volcanoes, earthquakes etc were 'bad design', before we appreciated they were vital to life on Earth as we know it- I'm sure you must have some favorites?

I've never heard of anyone claiming meteors, volcanoes, or earthquakes are bad design.

Besides, I thought we were talking about biology here.

Isn't that basically the watch maker argument you are giving me?

No need for a little man inside to turn the hands

i.e. automated function ≠ automated origin, the opposite argument can be better made- since we only know one source for such systems

I don't know what any of this is supposed to mean. Are you talking about the blind watchmaker argument (re: Dawkins)?

 

[Kylie]

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

Why do you think Natural Selection is the only part of evolution that does something? There are many things that work together.

And the creation of new genetic material is well understood, so your "somehow" comment seems to be another strawman.

And finally, this process of new genetic material being created and then changing to produce novel traits does happen, demonstrably so. So it seems to have more than enough creative power.

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

But the entire process is non-random. Why do you try to portray the overall process as though it is equivalent to just one part of it?

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

Once again, natural selection is just one part of evolution. If you are trying to say that evolution and natural selection are the same things, then you don't understand what either of them is. And if you do understand what they actually are, then you are being intellectually dishonest and deliberately misrepresenting what they are in order to further your own agenda. And no one likes that.

 

[Speedwell]

But that is something beside the point, if you conclude that the Rosetta stone required ID, do you really need to know how it was created to establish that?

To make a scientific theory of it, yes, you do.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is why I'm speaking of blatant chimeric organisms or complete genetic discontinuity. I'm talking about things where there wouldn't be an evolutionary explanation.

And if we saw patterns of such things in nature it would point to something other than evolution (e.g. design).

Yet we don't. Everything observed in biology fits with natural, evolutionary processes and the evolution of species over time.



Why would abiogenesis be circular reasoning? I'm not following you here.

then we're right back to the OP here with natural variation v macro evolution-
The #1 difference between the two?

The former is observable, repeatable, 'modelable' empirical- that natural variation is occurs is demanded by the evidence

The rest is demanded by the theory- we simply cannot observe a bacteria becoming a human through random mutation, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

I suggest learning more about biological evolution then. Because it certain can and does do a lot. The formation of new functional genes, proteins, etc, are well documented.

"Superficial variation" is a complete mis-characterization what biologists have discovered re: evolution over the past 150+ years.

and still, to empirically demonstrate macro-evolution, a bacteria becoming a human, we have got as far as bacteria becoming more bacteria- that leaves a lot of speculation

(This is also why I linked to examples of evolutionary approaches in engineering and fact they can result in superior designs compared to traditional design processes.)

yes, I've used that myself, it works great within a specified range of limitations, that's what makes it work

I've never heard of anyone claiming meteors, volcanoes, or earthquakes are bad design.
Besides, I thought we were talking about biology here.

then what do you personally consider examples of 'bad design' in biology?

I don't know what any of this is supposed to mean. Are you talking about the blind watchmaker argument (re: Dawkins)?

He was making reference to the original watchmaker argument- a watch requires a watch maker.

i.e. The fact that something has a certain degree of automated function, does not suggest an ultimate automated/naturalistic origin, quite the opposite- we only know of one phenomena which can achieve this; creative intelligence

 

[Guy Threepwood]

To make a scientific theory of it, yes, you do.

Archaeologists and forensic scientists routinely use scientific methods to determine between an artifact of creative intelligence and a natural cause- without necessarily knowing how it was done or by who. people still argue about how the pyramids were constructed- that doesn't leave us with 'natural erosion' as a default explanation!

Because creative intelligence is a real phenomena- a unique one with objectively unique fingerprints. The only thing that throws of the objectivity- is the profound implications in some cases..

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why do you think Natural Selection is the only part of evolution that does something? There are many things that work together.

And the creation of new genetic material is well understood, so your "somehow" comment seems to be another strawman.

And finally, this process of new genetic material being created and then changing to produce novel traits does happen, demonstrably so. So it seems to have more than enough creative power.


But the entire process is non-random. Why do you try to portray the overall process as though it is equivalent to just one part of it?


Once again, natural selection is just one part of evolution. If you are trying to say that evolution and natural selection are the same things, then you don't understand what either of them is. And if you do understand what they actually are, then you are being intellectually dishonest and deliberately misrepresenting what they are in order to further your own agenda. And no one likes that.

So the bottom line again- natural selection is a selection process, it can only select, filter from what has already been created- I can select a Ford Mustang over a Ford Pinto- I cannot select a non existent car.
Something has to be created somehow before it can be selected- yes?

That leaves mutation as the ultimate source of genetic variation and hence new code to be selected- as is needed if you are going to turn a bacteria into a human being

- this is Darwinian evolution 101- not my theory!

And in the modern synthesis- mutations are still believed to be essentially random

Mutations
Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

-that's the problematic part

Nobody questions natural selection- for the sake of argument- if God created 2 different species in the same environment- the one better adapted would be more likely to succeed - all else being even.

So of course natural section is part of the theory, it's just not the part in question- it's entirely moot, goes without saying.

The whole problem has never been the survival of the fittest, but the arrival of the fittest.

 

[VirOptimus]

So the bottom line again- natural selection is a selection process, it can only select, filter from what has already been created- I can select a Ford Mustang over a Ford Pinto- I cannot select a non existent car.
Something has to be created somehow before it can be selected- yes?

That leaves mutation as the ultimate source of genetic variation and hence new code to be selected- as is needed if you are going to turn a bacteria into a human being

- this is Darwinian evolution 101- not my theory!

And in the modern synthesis- mutations are still believed to be essentially random

Mutations
Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

-that's the problematic part

Nobody questions natural selection- for the sake of argument- if God created 2 different species in the same environment- the one better adapted would be more likely to succeed - all else being even.

So of course Natural section is part of the theory, it's just not the part in question- it's entirely moot

The whole problem has never been the survival of the fittest, but the arrival of the fittest.

If you want to challange an established scientific theory like the ToE then write an article for peer-review. If you cant, well then your views dont matter.

You dont seem to understand that the ToE explains all the data, all of it.

ID is just magic in disguise.

 

[pitabread]

then we're right back to the OP here with natural variation v macro evolution-
The #1 difference between the two?

The latter is simply the former over a broader scope. In that respect there isn't a tangible difference.

Arguably with evolution once you get the point of being able to evolve distinct breeding populations (e.g. speciation), the rest is just compounded speciation.

This is where I think a lot of people struggle conceptually with the concept of evolution; it's a recursive process. IOW, it builds on what comes before it in a constant feedback loop. When I hear it described the way you are describing it, I feel that piece of understanding is missing.

The rest is demanded by the theory- we simply cannot observe a bacteria becoming a human through random mutation, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

There is ample evidence from various areas to support the common ancestry of life on Earth if that's what you're wondering.

If you take some time to start researching it, you'll find more material on the subject than you could consume in your lifetime.

and still, to empirically demonstrate macro-evolution, a bacteria becoming a human, we have got as far as bacteria becoming more bacteria- that leaves a lot of speculation

I commented on this earlier; first, it's ridiculous to expect that we could duplicate ~4 billion years of evolution within a human lifespan. Second, scientists have demonstrated initial examples of multi-cellularity in experiments (see here for example: Experimental evolution of multicellularity). Third, bacteria are an entire kingdom of life with incredible variety.

Repeating "we have got as far as bacteria becoming more bacteria" not only doesn't do justice to what scientists have done, it also speaks of a highly simplistic if not completely naive view of the biology in question.

And fortunately we don't need to create the entire evolution of life on Earth since there are plenty of lines of evidence that already support common ancestry. Not everything needs to be explicitly recreated in a lab.

then what do you personally consider examples of 'bad design' in biology?

I told you: male testes. Believe me, if I could change the design of my body I wouldn't have those bloody things swinging around. In fact, I'd probably make the whole package down there retractable. Be a lot more comfortable that way.

He was making reference to the original watchmaker argument- a watch requires a watch maker.

I know what Dawkins was writing about; I've read that book. I don't understand your reference to it in response to my post.

i.e. The fact that something has a certain degree of automated function, does not suggest an ultimate automated/naturalistic origin, quite the opposite- we only know of one phenomena which can achieve this; creative intelligence

I suggest reading up on the concept of emergent properties. Going back to the subject of information in DNA, it may not require a creative intelligence at all if said information is simply an emergent property of DNA itself.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

ID is just magic in disguise.

If you see a rabbit appear from a hat, which is the more 'magical' explanation?

That it spontaneously appeared there by chance

or that is was put there on purpose, by design?

 

[VirOptimus]

If you see a rabbit appear from a hat, which is the more 'magical' explanation?

That it spontaneously appeared there by chance

or that is was put there on purpose, by design?

What point are you imagining making with that stupid example?

 

[pitabread]

ID is just magic in disguise.

Until ID advocates can propose a plausible mechanism by which design happens, yup.

 

[Kylie]

So the bottom line again- natural selection is a selection process, it can only select, filter from what has already been created- I can select a Ford Mustang over a Ford Pinto- I cannot select a non existent car.
Something has to be created somehow before it can be selected- yes?

That leaves mutation as the ultimate source of genetic variation and hence new code to be selected- as is needed if you are going to turn a bacteria into a human being

- this is Darwinian evolution 101- not my theory!

And in the modern synthesis- mutations are still believed to be essentially random

Mutations
Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

-that's the problematic part

Nobody questions natural selection- for the sake of argument- if God created 2 different species in the same environment- the one better adapted would be more likely to succeed - all else being even.

So of course natural section is part of the theory, it's just not the part in question- it's entirely moot, goes without saying.

The whole problem has never been the survival of the fittest, but the arrival of the fittest.

What part of this exactly do you have a problem with? You have the part that creates new information. You have the part that can weed out those with harmful mutations. Why do you not understand how this works?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The latter is simply the former over a broader scope. In that respect there isn't a tangible difference.

Arguably with evolution once you get the point of being able to evolve distinct breeding populations (e.g. speciation), the rest is just compounded speciation.

except only the former can be scientifically observed- the rest is theorized

and that's exactly what got us classical physics as a comprehensive explanation for physical reality.
a very tempting, intuitive, understandable extrapolation in the Victorian age Darwinism came from, which craved to reduce reality to it's simplest form

But in 21st C post QM, information age.. we know that scales matter, things DO work very differently at different scales

apples still fall from trees, and genetic apples fall not far from theirs- those are observations, not explanations. You can never explain gravity with classical physics or life with adaptation- it's an insurmountable paradox

This is where I think a lot of people struggle conceptually with the concept of evolution; it's a recursive process. IOW, it builds on what comes before it in a constant feedback loop. When I hear it described the way you are describing it, I feel that piece is missing.

we get the theory, and see the conflicts it has with science- horseshoe crabs that somehow resisted this 'constant feedback loop' for hundreds of millions of years

There is ample evidence from various areas to support the common ancestry of life on Earth if that's what you're wondering.

no- I'm not disputing common ancestry- though it is debatable even among secular scientists

If you take some time to start researching it, you'll find more material on the subject than you could consume in your lifetime.

Are you talking about UFOs or Sasquatch now? cmon Pita, you have been extremely good on sticking to substance previously

I commented on this earlier; it's ridiculous to expect that we could duplicate ~4 billion years of evolution within a human lifespan.

or that we could capture a UFO- that difficulty in gathering evidence does not lend credence to the belief

I told you: male testes. Believe me, if I could change the design of my body I wouldn't have those bloody things swinging around. In fact, I'd probably make the whole package down there retractable. Be a lot more comfortable that way.

Hey no boasting!

I know what Dawkins was writing about; I've read his book. I don't understand your reference to it in response to my post.

I suggest reading up on the concept of emergent properties. Going back to the subject of information in DNA, it may not require a creative intelligence at all if said information is simply an emergent property of DNA itself.

^ so that's the watchmaker argument again- " telling the time is simply an emergent property of the watch- so no creative intelligence is required" it is just a simple way to expose the fallacy of the 'automated function = automated origin' argument.

 

[pitabread]

except only the former can be scientifically observed- the rest is theorized

It's the same process though whether it's happening today or happening a million years ago.

we get the theory, and see the conflicts it has with science- horseshoe crabs that somehow resisted this 'constant feedback loop' for hundreds of millions of years

Not necessarily. First, there is discordance between phenotype and genotype. It's possible to have lots of genetic evolution with little effect on the phenotype, versus a little bit of genetic evolution with a dramatic effect on the phenotype.

There is also nothing that explicitly demands that all phenotypes radically change over time. Remember evolution is about the divergence and diversification of life. It's not a strictly linear process.

no- I'm not disputing common ancestry- though it is debatable even among secular scientists

You agree that life shares common ancestry?

(And it's only debateable insofar as the earliest life on Earth and trying to distinguish between a true LUCA versus a pool of early LUCAs).

Are you talking about UFOs or Sasquatch now? cmon Pita, you have been extremely good on sticking to substance previously

I'm talking about the support for biological evolution including common ancestry. There is more support for it in the scientific literature than you or I could possibly consume.

Out of curiosity what is your background on this in terms of research into the subject (and biology in general)? What sources are you using? Books? Courses? Etc.

or that we could capture a UFO- that difficulty in gathering evidence does not lend credence to the belief

This analogy makes no sense. But I won't call attention to it any more if you don't either.

(And not everything need be fully recreated in real-time to necessarily be supported by evidence. Processes leave evidence of their occurrence and that evidence is examinable.)

Hey no boasting!

^ so that's the watchmaker argument again- " telling the time is simply an emergent property of the watch- so no creative intelligence is required" it is just a simple way to expose the fallacy of the 'automated function = automated origin' argument.

Telling time is a function of a watch, not a property of it. This analogy doesn't work here.

On top of that, when it comes to dealing with origins of objects it's a question of plausible mechanisms. In the case of abiogenesis and/or evolution we're dealing with biochemistry and biological organisms. In the case of a watch, we're dealing with an artificially manufactured object. These are not equivalent scenarios.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What part of this exactly do you have a problem with? You have the part that creates new information. You have the part that can weed out those with harmful mutations. Why do you not understand how this works?

well it does work, on a limited platform- the one we can actually scientifically observe, Finch beaks, hair length etc, because there are genetic controls specifically set up to allow a degree of adaptation that is essential in a changing and varied environment. i.e. that's an extremely useful design feature, not a design mechanism.

Just to illustrate the principle:
This software allows us to vary the size, shape and color of text. We can throw random values at these parameters and get mostly viable results- because the options are designed to allow for this variation within a limited viable range.

if you understand why no amount of tweaking these parameters can ever write a new software program, you understand, in principle at least, why no amount of tweaking control genes can ever create a new body plan

and likewise, mutating code at a deeper layer in the hierarchy, will crash the entire system, just as in DNA

 

[pitabread]

if you understand why no amount of tweaking these parameters can ever write a new software program, you understand, in principle at least, why no amount of tweaking control genes can ever create a new body plan

False equivalence Fallacy

We'd already covered this previously, too.

and likewise, mutating code at a deeper layer in the hierarchy, will crash the entire system, just as in DNA