What did it all started with?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well they absolutely are if you are an archeologist!- many objects are identified as a probably a product of intelligence v nature by simply being similar to examples already found. But the point being there are more definitive measures than mere similarity.

Archeologists can absolutely confirm creative intelligence in objects like the Rosetta Stone at a mere glance- not because of their physical medium or shape, but from information that the medium has been used to describe.

So again it is the information which is the more definitive evidence rather than the medium- which may or may not also constitute evidence.

The form and context is also important - human carving was known long before the Rosetta stone was found, and the form of the crucial information was also known (Ancient Greek).

So, not only do neither of those distinguishing features apply to DNA or its supporting functional frameworks, but we have clear evidence for how the information in that system develops, from elaborating the mechanisms involved, observing and emulating their function, and determining the history of their operation through phylogenetics.

... granted abiogenesis as a freebie- in demonstrating the claim that humans evolved from a bacteria like organism through natural selection acting on random mutation- we have got as far as more bacteria.. that leaves quite a bit to the imagination.

It would be clearly absurd to expect every developmental sequence in nature to be established by a full real-time lab demonstration. We know how such sequences progress on evolutionary, geological, or cosmological scales by the scientific method - making observations and testing hypotheses.

We know, in some detail, how the universe developed, how stars develop and their lifecycles, how the Earth has developed, how the climate has changed, how the continents have skated around on its surface, how mountain ranges have risen and fallen, and so-on; all this from a variety of indirect evidence.

The evidence we have for common descent is as conclusive as that for those other discoveries, arguably more so. The same materials, the same building blocks, the same genetic code, the same mechanisms, the same functions, all showing evidence of modification over time in a pattern consistent with the nested hierarchy we'd expect - crucial core features preserved almost unchanged down the ages, and every creature carrying a partial history of their lineage in their anatomy, physiology, and genetics. Every significant discovery in every relevant field for the last 150 years has confirmed this - even fields that did not exist when the theory was first proposed are in full agreement.

And yet Horseshoe crabs apparently lived though almost half a billion years of environmental change in virtual stasis.. how would you reconcile your statement with this observation?

Evolution is genetic change in populations over generations. It need not involve significant morphological change.

Horseshoe crabs have evolved, just as coelocanths, sharks, etc., have. They haven't made major morphological changes - presumably, like other creatures that have retained their gross morphology over geological time, they are well-adapted to a relatively stable niche.

See Molecular Evolutionary Patterns in Horseshoe Crabs.

"Both absolute and relative rate tests suggest a moderate slowdown in sequence evolution in horseshoe crabs."

"...the current results show that large numbers of molecular characters distinguish even these most morphologically conservative of organisms. Furthermore, comparisons against previously published mitochondrial sequence data in the morphologically dynamic hermit crab-king crab complex demonstrates that striking heterogeneity in levels of morphotypic differentiation can characterize Arthropod lineages at similar magnitudes of molecular divergence."​

IOW, hermit crabs show plenty of genetic variety despite looking very similar, and creatures in related lineages can look very different with similar levels of genetic variation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ifn it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Excellent - made my long-winded post redundant

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

who knows? But how how quickly arguments for Darwinism go from 'mountains of undeniable evidence' to 'well you never know- it coulda happened!'

You can't draw any conclusion about scientific knowledge from one person not having the information at his fingertips.

Well we agree- apparently they don't- you might want to debate this with Frumious though: "If there are populations that reproduce with variation and there are selective pressures that act on them, they will evolve, whether they're pre-biotic reaction chains, living things, or computer simulations."

It's not a problem. Even when the organism is optimally adapted to the environment, genetic drift will occur, because neutral mutations can become fixed.

these all present problems for a theory that relies on gradual change, where 'Natura non facit saltus'

It doesn't rely on gradual change. Change can be fast or slow, and it's not necessarily morphological. I would not be surprised if biochemical, e.g. metabolic, changes were most common.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I didn't say they didn't evolve, I said their form hadn't changed noticeably (which is evident from the fossils). In the modern synthesis the changes in the genetics over time would constitute evolution.

If there is no pressure to change a lifestyle, body form, etc., the population may look very similar for millions of generations. If the pressures are strong to avoid a negative impact or take advantage of a new opportunity evolution can be rapid.

There is nothing about differences in rates of change in body forms or lifestyle that conflict with evolution. In fact, it should be expected.

The Horseshoe crab is just a particularly stark example of the larger pattern though.

As Paleontologist David Raup noted; what we see is generally not a gradual progressive change, but a sudden appearance, followed by long periods of virtual stasis, often with slight degradation, up to extinction or they are still here.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You can't draw any conclusion about scientific knowledge from one person not having the information at his fingertips.

Often because the information does not exist:

"It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."
Dawkins

It doesn't rely on gradual change. Change can be fast or slow, and it's not necessarily morphological. I would not be surprised if biochemical, e.g. metabolic, changes were most common.

Dawkins(2009) "Evolution is not only a gradual process, as a matter of fact; it has to be gradual, if it is to do any explanatory work."

That seems to be a point of contention between gradualists and punctuated equilibrium.

The problem is 'how fast' the Cambrian keeps shrinking, the explosions get ever more explosive, and there are certain speed limits which come into play

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The form and context is also important - human carving was known long before the Rosetta stone was found, and the form of the crucial information was also known (Ancient Greek).

So, not only do neither of those distinguishing features apply to DNA or its supporting functional frameworks,

Both display symbolic code conventions- a digital information system in the case of DNA, we know how these are created via intelligence, just not spontaneously

but we have clear evidence for how the information in that system develops, from elaborating the mechanisms involved, observing and emulating their function, and determining the history of their operation.

^ And again, the exact same can be said for computers, we just don't know how either observation could be created through blind natural forces

It would be clearly absurd to expect every developmental sequence in nature to be established by a full real-time lab demonstration. We know how such sequences progress on evolutionary, geological, or cosmological scales by the scientific method - making observations and testing hypotheses.

We know, in some detail, how the universe developed, how stars develop and their lifecycles, how the Earth has developed, how the climate has changed, how the continents have skated around on its surface, how mountain ranges have risen and fallen, and so-on; all this from a variety of indirect evidence.

I agree, we appreciate now that the Big Bang hypothesis is not just 'religious pseudoscience' as Hoyle put it, still refuting it till his death in 2001. Cosmogony begets physics begets chemistry begets biology, each involves more complexity and we are a long way from being able to close the case file on all this!

The evidence we have for common descent is as conclusive as that for those other discoveries, arguably more so. The same materials, the same building blocks, the same genetic code, the same mechanisms, the same functions, all showing evidence of modification over time in a pattern consistent with the nested hierarchy we'd expect

- crucial core features preserved almost unchanged down the ages, and every creature carrying a partial history of their lineage in their anatomy, physiology, and genetics. Every significant discovery in every relevant field for the last 150 years has confirmed this - even fields that did not exist when the theory was first proposed are in full agreement.

Well analogies and gross similarities are not criteria

I don't generally dispute common decent, nor evolution in terms of change occurring, 'how' is the question, and 'chance'- an unsatisfactory answer for many scientists today.

That said "The same materials, the same building blocks, the same [blueprints], the same mechanisms, the same functions, all showing evidence of modification over time in a pattern consistent with the nested hierarchy we'd expect" also applies perfectly to automobile development. It says nothing about these things spontaneously designing themselves for no particular reason.

Evolution is genetic change in populations over generations. It need not involve significant morphological change.

Bacteria to human is a pretty significant morphological change.
That is the extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence - and to paraphrase Dawkins: [Darwinian] evolution which requires help over the tricky parts by God, is no sort of [Darwinian] evolution at all.

 

[Estrid]

Shorthand

Excellent - made my long-winded post redundant

Shorthand like what I said is for thos who already get the idea.

The howcome still monkeys people won't get it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Ifn it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Is a logical thought process, it considers a future consequence, and so could certainly apply to what God figured for the Horseshoe crab

Random mutation on the other hand, is apt to destroy functional designs.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The Horseshoe crab is just a particularly stark example of the larger pattern though.

As Paleontologist David Raup noted; what we see is generally not a gradual progressive change, but a sudden appearance, followed by long periods of virtual stasis, often with slight degradation, up to extinction or they are still here.

Paleontology is a field with a notoriously low temporal resolution. "Sudden" in paleontology could be hundred of generations, which is plenty of time. (See my favorite lizard.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

^
Well I certainly do admire your example in posts like these, of such cool headed, thought provoking, evidence-based scientific counter arguments, which really set the standard here.

It totally contradicts that old stereotype of the 'all insults- no substance, angry atheist ' you run into on some forums.

Uh huh. And just waiting for you to support any of your claims properly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is a logical thought process, it considers a future consequence, and so could certainly apply to what God figured for the Horseshoe crab

Random mutation on the other hand, is apt to destroy functional designs.

And there you go again. Who says (well except for creationists) that evolution is random?

You are making the typical creationist mistake of only looking at variation. Variation randomly adds traits, that part is random. Natural selection saves advantageous changes. That results in good traits being preserved and new advantageous ones replacing ones of limited use.

We do have a working explanation. It is creationists that lack this ability.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Often because the information does not exist:

"It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."
Dawkins

Yeah, quote-mining is a form of dishonesty.

Dawkins(2009) "Evolution is not only a gradual process, as a matter of fact; it has to be gradual, if it is to do any explanatory work."

That seems to be a point of contention between gradualists and punctuated equilibrium.

Not really. It's just a question of timescales. Evolution happens in populations over many generations. That's gradual by human timescales. The 'punctuations' in punctuated equilibria are relatively rapid, i.e. rapid compared to the periods of relative 'equilibrium'.

The problem is 'how fast' the Cambrian keeps shrinking, the explosions get ever more explosive, and there are certain speed limits which come into play

Again, a diversification taking many millions of years is hardly an 'explosion' (several papers have suggested changing the tag to something less hyperbolic), and it's becoming clearer that the period from the Ediacaran to the Ordovician was a series of rapid diversifying radiations of which the Cambrian 'explosion' left the clearest evidence (being the first major diversification of hard-bodied creatures). See 'Not with a Bang, but a Bunch of Bangs'.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yeah, quote-mining is a form of dishonesty.

sticks and stones once more

I never read past personal accusations- there's not much point

'Insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat'

If you have any substantive counter argument I would be interested in that.

 

[Tinker Grey]

sticks and stones once more

I never read past personal accusations- there's not much point

'Insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat'

If you have any substantive counter argument I would be interested in that.

Insult or not, you quote-mined. If you are standing by your usage of that quote to support your stance, your posts are dishonest.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Both display symbolic code conventions- a digital information system in the case of DNA, we know how these are created via intelligence, just not spontaneously

You're beginning to sound like Xianghua. The logic is unsound. We know that human intelligence can create symbolic substitution codes, and we know that they can be produced without human intelligence. All the evidence we do have suggests that the DNA/RNA system was originated and elaborated naturally.

^ And again, the exact same can be said for computers, we just don't know how either observation could be created through blind natural forces

They couldn't be more different historically. Human history has produced a wide variety of computer types, both digital and analogue, from a wide variety of independent manufacturers and different designs. The core structures and components are quite different between the different lineages and also change radically within lineages. From gears and levers to hydraulics, from electronic valves to semiconductors to quantum bits. Little, if anything, physical is conserved between major iterations - even the transistor has undergone several radical redesigns in semiconductor systems, all of it by human design.

The DNA/RNA system is highly conserved at its core, and has an embedded history displaying clear evidence of sequential modification and elaboration over time - even ribosomes show a layering of elaborations and refinements on a crude core. We don't know the details of the system's origin, but we do know how it is elaborated, and that is by natural processes of mutation and selection with no evidence of directed manipulation, purpose, or intent.

I agree, we appreciate now that the Big Bang hypothesis is not just 'religious pseudoscience' as Hoyle put it, still refuting it till his death in 2001.

Hoyle was a great astrophysicist but a contrarian and eccentric, particularly in his demonstrably incorrect views on cosmology.

I don't generally dispute common decent, nor evolution in terms of change occurring, 'how' is the question, and 'chance'- an unsatisfactory answer for many scientists today.

How many who work in evolutionary biology find it 'unsatisfactory'? what percentage?

That said "The same materials, the same building blocks, the same [blueprints], the same mechanisms, the same functions, all showing evidence of modification over time in a pattern consistent with the nested hierarchy we'd expect" also applies perfectly to automobile development. It says nothing about these things spontaneously designing themselves for no particular reason.

Xinghua, is that you?

No, that description doesn't apply to automobile development, not even within a single manufacturer.

Living things don't 'spontaneously design themselves for no particular reason'. They are modified by interactions with their environment over generations.

Bacteria to human is a pretty significant morphological change.
That is the extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence - and to paraphrase Dawkins: [Darwinian] evolution which requires help over the tricky parts by God, is no sort of [Darwinian] evolution at all.

Quite. If you investigate the flora and fauna currently alive on Earth, you'll find contemporary examples of every major transition from single-cell microbe to human. It takes very little effort to visualise that progression when you have extant type examples to consider; from organisms that spend part of their time as single cells and part as multicellular creatures, to multicellular organisms with partial cell specialization, to the beginnings of eyes, guts, limbs, nervous systems, to the transition from sea to land, and so-on.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Paleontology is a field with a notoriously low temporal resolution. "Sudden" in paleontology could be hundred of generations, which is plenty of time. (See my favorite lizard.)

Enough time for random errors to explain all the observed phenotypic novelty? in a few hundred generations!?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

sticks and stones once more

I never read past personal accusations- there's not much point

'Insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat'

If you have any substantive counter argument I would be interested in that.

You posted it, and it's one of the most common deliberately misleading creationist quote-mines of Dawkins. Dawkins himself says he thinks it's his most quote-mined phrase (see the link). That's why I didn't spend any time on it. If you read the context surrounding the quote, it clearly explains what is meant.

If you posted it in ignorance, it was careless.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Insult or not, you quote-mined. If you are standing by your usage of that quote to support your stance, your posts are dishonest.

If there is any confusion about the context of the quote - here is the longer version:

"For example in the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."


I'm using this quote to support my stance that fossils often appear in the record in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear, as if there were no evolutionary history- certainly not in the predicted gradual Darwinian sense.

This is hardly a controversial observation today, even from a 'gradualist' like Dawkins

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You posted it, and it's one of the most common deliberately misleading creationist quote-mines of Dawkins. Dawkins himself says he thinks it's his most quote-mined phrase (see the link). That's why I didn't spend any time on it. If you read the context surrounding the quote, it clearly explains what is meant.

If you posted it in ignorance, it was careless.

as above here is the quote in larger context;

"For example in the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."


If anyone claims that Dawkins' actual intended meaning was 'we find a nice gradual progression of evolution leading up to these fossils' rather I think that would be the misleading interpretation!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Random mutation on the other hand, is apt to destroy functional designs.

When a variation occurs that 'destroys a functional design', that individual is, by definition, less 'fit', so less likely to contribute those genes to the next generation. So the destructive variant genes do not persist long enough to go to fixation in the population.