In three podcasts at Vox:
How did life start on Earth? What was the series of events that led to birds, bugs, amoebas, you, and me?
That’s the subject of Origins, a three-episode series from Unexplainable — Vox’s podcast that explores big mysteries, unanswered questions, and all the things we learn by diving into the unknown. – Brian Resnick (March 1, 2023)
The three mysteries they offer are:
- Where did Earth’s water come from?
- How did life start in that water?
- What is life anyway?
About that last: Science writer Carl Zimmer offers “The problem is, for each definition of life, scientists can think of a confounding exception. Take, for instance, NASA’s definition of life: “Life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.” But that definition would exclude viruses, which are not “self-sustaining” and can only survive and replicate by infiltrating a host.”
I wonder if humans are “capable of Darwinian evolution”. Can we see some proof?
Individual organisms, including humans, do not evolve. The evolutionary process occurs with changes in allele frequency within populations.
Then is NASA brain dead when they propose/fall for this “test”? How do you propose they do it? Step by step please.
Cart before horse. Data before interpretation. There isn’t any yet.
The origin of human beings from primitive ape-like precursors is one — just one — of the definitions of “evolution” that the public and the media carry around in their heads. Not surprisingly, the iconic transition from ape to man is the first, second, third, and fourth image produced by a Google image search for the term ‘evolution’.
https://www.google.com/search?q=evolution&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiL2oOXo9H9AhVqzMkDHRWmCDsQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=evolution&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQDFAAWABgAGgAcAB4AIABAIgBAJIBAJgBAKoBC2d3cy13aXotaW1n&sclient=img&ei=rxYLZMvGBOqYp84Plcyi2AM&bih=728&biw=1440&client=safari
Yet, the supposed evidence for human evolution is far from being a slam dunk for Darwinists.
In May of 2020, via an article from the American Museum of Natural History, (which is certainly no creationist organization), it was stated, ““Humans are storytellers: Theories of human evolution often resemble “anthropogenic narratives” that borrow the structure of a hero’s journey,, but unless grounded in testable hypotheses, they are no more than “just-so stories”,,,, “When you look at the narrative for hominin origins, it’s just a big mess — there’s no consensus whatsoever.”
And as the following video reveals, and as is typical for Darwinian ‘just-so stories’, the ape to man icon is based far more on unrestrained imagination than it is based on any actual substantiating scientific evidence.
As the following 2021 articles stated, “(artistic) hominin reconstructions vary in appearance considerably”,,,
As a leading researcher of the 2021 paper further noted, “I expected to find consistency in those reconstructions displayed in natural history museums, but the differences, even there, were so severe that I almost thought all previous practitioners had never encountered a single hominid reconstruction before commencing their own.”
and as the following article noted, “a great deal of ‘scientific/artistic licence’ is inappropriately used in ‘hominin’ reconstructions.,,,”
Imagination and speculation, not science, plays a far larger role in ‘artistic reconstructions’ for human evolution than the general public is aware of. As Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal Science, “Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist’s conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it…. Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.
As Earnest A. Hooton of Harvard stated, “alleged restoration of ancient types of man have very little, if any, scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public”
And as if grossly misleading the public with ‘artistic license’ was not bod enough for Darwinists, it also turns out that the overt racism of Charles Darwin himself,,,
,, it also turns out that the overt racism of Charles Darwin himself is ‘systemically’ present in these misleading artistic reconstructions of human evolution in natural history museums.
Moreover, if we rightly ignore these highly misleading, even systemically racist, artistic reconstructions that Darwinists have put forth in museums, and look soberly and dispassionately at the scientific evidence itself, we find that the scientific evidence itself contradicts the Darwinian ‘narrative’,, and it contradicts it at every turn.
Thus in conclusion, the claim from Darwinists that humans evolved from some ape-like creature is found to be almost entirely, if not entirely, based on untethered imagination and ‘artistic reconstruction’, rather than on any substantiating, much less any compelling, scientific evidence. In short, the ‘narrative’ of human evolution belongs far more to the realm of Alice in Wonderland fantasy and fairy tales than it belongs in the real world of empirical science.
There will be no progress on this site till everyone uses the same definitions.
For example, what does the term “evolution” mean. People will use it differently from one sentence to the next and sometimes within the same sentence. If it just means change, it is a trivial word.
Similarly, “natural selection” which is just what happens anywhere in the world is used differently all the time. So any rime someone uses the expression, all they are doing is saying what happened, happened. A perfectly useless term.
Then there is the term “Darwin” that is used in all sorts of variations without any thought of the meaning in a particular context. Just what does the term “Darwinian” mean?
Then there are words for which there is no accepted definition. One here is “life” but like “evolution” and “natural selection” are used all the time with the user unaware of the context in which it is used.
Then there times we use definitions and don’t know it. For example, “2+2=4” is a definition but people then question this without understanding it’s a definition. Adding two and two must equal something. We call that thing “4” so it is just a definition.
There are other terms such as “theory” and “science” which are rarely used with common definitions. But we confuse the different meanings of each as if they were the same.
But that is UD where understanding is definitely not an objective.
Jerry, I completely agree with you. The definition of terms.
Recently I came across a term “Phenotypic plasticity”.
Biologists claim, that blind cave fish, the way how it lose its eyes, is an example of phenotypic plasticity. And I always thought, that it is an example of Darwinian evolution :)))))))))
Ba77,
Starting in the 1960s, the idea of ‘cave men’ was widespread. Yet I wonder what men did when no natural caves were in the area. But back to the 1960s. These cave men were shown with heads/skulls with heavy brow ridges. Strangely, as the decades passed, depictions of these allegedly early men upgraded to make them indistinguishable from “modern men.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/rethinking-neanderthals-83341003/
What is sorely lacking is a comparative study of skull shapes. The various racial groups, from Caucasian to Negroid to Asian, show marked differences. I have yet to see side by side comparisons, with angle measurements, showing representative skull shapes for each.
The just-so stories included drawings by Ernst Haeckel that were widely published and which appeared in textbooks until the 1990s. They were fraudulent but confirm the idea that the theory of evolution was worth far more as a means of spreading atheism than in spreading any scientific ideas. So here we are, in the midst of evolution promoters, who, as far as I can tell, are part of a planned effort to promote atheism since ‘evolution’ requires no God in order to function. Even the origin of life itself is still promoted as happening through the chance combination of inorganic chemicals with perhaps a little help from atmospheric gases and a lightning strike or two. All of that can be duplicated in a laboratory today. It could even be simulated using a computer program.
Haeckel’s fraud has been reveled but some people are too trusting and do not look beyond the textbooks they had in school.
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo18785800.html
From what I understand phenotypic plasticity is just genetics.
So it is not an example of Evolution (capital E). I include epigenetics as a subset of genetics. Phenotypic changes can be caused by allele changes or epigenetic processes.
There is obviously phenotypic differences between species. But how that arose is still a mystery.
Jerry at 7,
Why not lead by example? Post all those definitions.
The term “evolution” just means changes by a change in alleles or epigenetic effect. It is completely part of modern day genetics. It is also consistent with the concept called micro evolution which is just genetics (includes epigenetics.)
The term “Evolution mean tiers 2 and 3 of this discription of life changes which was put forward 17 years ago here. No one disagreed with the distinctions made here but it can certainly be refined with better examples and descriptions.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-argument-from-incredulity-vs-the-argument-from-gullibility/#comment-40952
That is why I try to use a capital “E” anytime I am referring to what the debate is about. It is definitely not about the small “e” which only has relevance to genetics.
Natural selection is described in the following comment
https://uncommondescent.com/origin-of-life/paul-davies-on-the-gap-between-life-and-non-life/#comment-775881
Essentially it is just what happens when a system has been disturbed after one of its elements takes on a new value. For ecologies, the new values may be environmental or the introduction of a new species or a new allele version of a species. All three could affect the allele version of a species that becomes predominant.
Darwin is the most egregiously misused term on this site. Darwin was a lay scientist who had some insights that have proved useful. These insights have also been exaggerated by many as to their implications. So when using any expression that includes some form of Darwin, it is best to indicate which insights are being used.
Darwin had little knowledge of biology since at best it was primitive at the time. No one knew exactly what a cell was or what the implications were. So give him credit for some of his insights but also the evidence is that his ideas has little to do with Evolution but a lot to do with evolution or genetics.
So Darwin’s ideas are definitely real and relevant to genetics. His ideas have no meaning for Evolution because the changes necessary for Evolution to take place are far beyond what genetic process can accomplish.
Darwin is not someone to malign but he is also not someone who changed science much. Give him credit where it is due but with the understanding that the ideas he put forward had value but not to Evolution.
So the lesson here is not to mock or disparage Darwin but admit his ideas are useful for a very important science, namely genetics. But then emphasize that his ideas have proven fruitless for Evolution.
The last word that needs a careful definition is the term “theory.” It must be distinguished between the forces of physics which are continually operating and those by intelligences which could be one time events. To think that both are the same thing is ludicrous.
The above definitions are probably not precise enough and modifications should be debated until there is general agreement on each.
I am sure there are other terms and each may have different variations that should be delineated so everyone knows just what the other means. My guess is that this will not happen.
The definition of “theory” is especially problematic. It could range from the “wave theory of light” to “the Butler did it” with a lot of examples in-between. We tend to use the same word for all.
Aside: ID is closer to the “Butler did it” than to the “wave theory of light” so why use the same word for ID as for an area of particle physics.
Jerry,
the term “phenotypic plasticity” is just another Darwinian conjecture, very similar to “natural selection” conjecture. Darwinists had to invent this term to somehow justify their misinterpretation of reality. The term “phenotypic plasticity” is just another example of Darwinian damage control. They can’t admit that the ability to lose eyes “at will” — to save energy — is just another designed feature. It can’t be more obvious, especially when so many other evolutionary unrelated species living in caves have this ability (e.g. beetles and spiders). Moreover, there are other examples of “phenotypic plasticity”, e.g. adaptive (real time) color change of peppered moth’s larvae (I bet that adult peppered moth and other moth species work the same way as its larvae, can change wings color “at will”).
Jerry, I always wanted to ask, are you a creationist, a ID proponent, a theistic evolutionist or something else ?
Hmm. Historian of Science, Robert J. Richards wrote a paper (PDF) that questions whether fraud ever occurred.
AF at 15,
Hmm, and Charles Darwin himself conceded that it can be seriously questioned whether his theory even qualifies as a ‘true science’ in the first place.
Of supplemental note:
Definitely, an ID proponent.
Let’s just say I am interested in truth and believe ID represents that. But people here want to define ID in lots of ways. For example, it has nothing to do with religion but they want it to be closely associated with their religion. Not illogical but ID can be associated with lots of religions. For example, there is nothing in ID that points to a triune God so Christianity is not the only religion justified by ID.
“Creationist” is another word that needs a definition. It is ill defined on this site but means one thing to the general world, Young Earth Creationist. The term “theistic evolutionist is also badly defined but outside a very small community, no one has ever heard of it.
Does anyone here know, that scientists and philosophers justify Darwinian Evolution by showing “creationism” to be obviously wrong. An absurd bit of logic because ID is not creationism and ID and Darwinian Evolution do not represent a totality of possibilities. ID is discredited constantly by associating it with creationism which as I said nearly everyone associates with Young Earth Creationism.
From what I understand, theistic evolutionists are all over the lot. There used to be a few that came here to comment. It seems that their beliefs are based on it had to happen naturally somehow and is driven mainly not by the evidence but by opposition to YECs who they associate with ID.
Aside: I am definitely not a YEC and probably not what’s called an old earth creationist, whatever that is. I have no idea how design was instigated in this universe nor does anyone else using science. They will appeal to Genesis but that definitely is not ID or science.
It’s a mystery.
I am on record that if ID wins the day, (highly unlikely given the strategies used to justify it) the real food fight will begin.
Aside2: I’ve written several times that both life and complex life could have arisen naturally but science seems to strongly suggest otherwise. But a creator who is powerful enough to create this universe, certainly has the knowledge and ability to make it happen. For example, with initial/boundary conditions at the origin of the universe.
I’m not saying it happened that way, just that’s it possible that was the way.
Neither are conjectures.
They both happen naturally. I point out that “natural selection” happens all the time but is essentially trivial. So why not admit it. It represents truth and is obvious to the average person.
People including Darwin witnessed that there were physical changes that took place over time within a species. For example, there are 7 foot and 3 foot humans with different musculature, skin color, hair color, and facial shapes. Their understanding of genetic cellular process were basically nil.
So they use the expressions plasticity to describe the process. They reasoned that If it could take place within a species that eventually small physical changes would lead to a different species. Obviously wrong given our knowledge of genetics today but a reasonable speculation in the mid 1800s.
Now they will say some genetic changes will eventually cause physical changes. This will then lead to a new species as new genes with varying alleles get added to a genome that cause even more physical changes.
No evidence for this but this is the speculation. That’s what most modern evolutionary biology is about.
I have nothing against research that seeks these answers. A lot of it has led to epigenetic research which is valid and 100% consistent with ID. Some of these epigenetic effects definitely lead to what would be called plasticity changes.
Aside: I believe truth is what will win out. But how to establish that truth? To deny the obvious such as natural selection is the worse possible strategy. Instead emphasize that it is true but all the evidence is that it is trivial even over millions of years.
There is zero reason to denigrate Darwin. Just acknowledge he was right but only on minor things. Modern genetics depends on many of his ideas. Give him his due but say modern science shows these ideas as very limited. That’s true.
People are scared of the truth on both sides of the argument. For example, I see little evidence of pro ID people seeking it here.
Alan Fox writes:
I would say that the most that could be claimed is observer bias. Unlike the depictions of Jesus as a light skinned, light haired, blue eyed man. In the latter case, there is almost certainly some level of intentional deception involved.
Where did the Gould quote come from, Origenes?
Just to be clear, I’m querying the accusation of fraud. Everyone makes mistakes and Haeckel owned up to some inaccuracies and mis-judgements.
Also evolutionary developmental biology is a productive field of research.
Alan Fox @21
Stephen Jay Gould, Abscheulich!(Atrocious!), NATURAL HISTORY, Mar. 2000, at 42, 44–45
Bonus quote:
SOURCE
Jesus was born from a Jewess but what are the physical qualities of his Father?
Sandy writes:
According to Christianity he is not physical. A better question would be, was Jesus haploid or diploid?
But this is deviating from my original comment. Why does Jesus tend to be depicted with the physical/racial characteristics of the people where the depiction is made? In the Bible he is never described as being different in any physical way from the general population. So, any significant deviation from a typical mid-eastern Jewish person (darker skin, curly dark hair, brown eyes, etc), would be an intentional deception.
AF at 22: “evolutionary developmental biology is a productive field of research.”
Developmental biology has no use for evolutionary presuppositions.
Here is an excellent powerpoint presentation by Dr. Jonathan Wells, starting around the 15:00 minute mark, showing that the central dogma of Darwinian evolution, which simply stated is “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us”, is incorrect at every step.
BA77 @5
as to Darwinian museum artists … That is exactly what all these biologists, paleontologists, anthropologists and all the other “-logists” are … artists …. romantics … story-tellers … natural science graduates …. who never made anything …. it is a grotesque … it is absurdly absurd that this sort of people research/investigate the most advanced technology on this planet … it is insane …. no wonder that these people are permanently wrong … whatever they said, later it always turned out to be wrong … not only these people are extremely biased, what is even worse –they are not qualified to investigate biology … yes, that’s right. Biologists are not qualified to investigate biology. Because biology is all about engineering. That is the reason why these people are permanently wrong …
Ford Prefect contradicting himself:
Also Ford Prefect in the same comment:
PS:Inform yourself and don’t write nonsenses. There are Jewish with blue eyes not many but are. You just generalized common features of Jews to 100% of Jews.
PPS: The Supernatural birth of Jesus should give pause to any logic regarding physical features of Jesus.
Jerry @17
Jerry, of course ID has a lot to do with religion. If you are an ID proponent, you have to BELIEVE in a designer, a creator — whoever it may be. You believe in a creation. You are a creationist. That is the fact. I have to agree with those atheists who claim that ID is just another word for Creationism.
One more note:
Few days ago, there was an article published at ICR.org by Randy Guliuzza. I like this fellow engineer very much, because he can see things and give it the right names …
Here is the article title:
Mutation-Selection: A Calamitous Creationist Concession
this is the part I like:
https://www.icr.org/article/mutation-selection-calamitous-creationist
an excellent article …. I can only agree with Guliuzza …. Darwinists have been misrepresenting the reality for 150 years and Creationists/ID proponents still parroting some of this stuff …
As to Natural selection, you wrote:
Yes, it is obvious and self-evident that broken /sick species die. It is a common sense. You don’t have to call it names – it is a common sense. Darwin misrepresented the reality from the beginning, that is why he had to invent this term … and now Darwinists and some Creationists/ID proponents use this term permanently to explain the origin of the most sophisticated technology on this planet …… Natural selection did it :))))))))) Natural selection …natural selection …. look what natural selection can do … look, … natural selection can solve the most complex engineering challenges – like to design an autonomous self-navigating flying systems :))))))))) Natural selection did it … Send future aerial engineers home … close technical universities …. leave it to natural selection :))))))))
Guliuzzia is right … many of you play Darwin’s game ….
PS: as to phenotypic plasticity … of course it is a conjecture … it is a trick. Invented by Darwinists to trick lay or not very smart people. A peppered moth caterpillar can “see” background color with its body and then adjust its body color to fit the background color. Jerry, you think that this is an easy feat ? Do you realize how complex engineering problem it is ? But it is easy for a Darwinist (like you). You give this problem a name “Phenotypic plasticity” … problem solved ….
Thank you for your opinions.
Just as an aside, there is no way anyone could call me a Darwinist. And yes, I appreciate how intricate life is from the cell to all the coordinated systems in advanced forms of life. It is very much like engineering and it would take an extremely advanced intelligence to create them.
How and when It was done is a mystery.
Martin_r: A peppered moth caterpillar can “see” background color with its body and then adjust its body color to fit the background color.
If that is your interpretation of what unguided evolutionary theory says then clearly you’ve never understood it, at all. Which means your arguments against it are unfounded; you are arguing against a stance that no one takes.
To be clear: the idea is that moths whose colour is highly contrasting with the background are easy to spot by predators so that the ones who blend in better have a higher chance of survival and therefore produce more of the next generation. It’s a very simple concept but you seem to have completely missed it.
Indeed, and the result of having only one set of chromosomes (haploid) is no Y chromosome…
…and Jesus would have been a woman!!!
The art of lying and belittling another.
https://mobile.twitter.com/pmarca/status/163471936930017208
How often does both sides of the argument here do this? One side admits it has no religious beliefs while the other side professes to be based on religious beliefs and theoretically should be bound by it.
JVL @31
Perhaps it is because of my bad English, but let me clarify once again …
Of course, I understand the advantage of not being seen by predators … to blend in …
Creator of peppered moth understands this advantage too :)))))))
THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF CAMOUFLAGE – TO “BLEND IN” :)))))))
THAT IS WHY OUR CREATOR ENGINEERED THIS CAMOUFLAGE FEATURE :))))))
I am just trying to explain, that Darwinists invented a fancy term “phenotypic plasticity” to justify the existence of this camouflage feature, because it doesn’t fit the classic mutations-selection theory…
The same for blind cave species – according to Darwinists, another example of phenotypic plasticity. In reality, these species can switch off their eyes development “at will” — to save energy.
Again, this has nothing to with Darwinism or natural selection. These species will switch off their eyes development anytime when there is no light. Will happen anytime with our without your natural selection or Darwin :)))))))
BECAUSE ALL THESE FEATS WERE DESIGNED THAT WAY.
And it doesn’t matter how many more fancy terms will Darwinists invent … You people were misinterpreting reality for 150 years….
Do you get in JVL ?
@Martin_r :
If you want you should focus on God , let atheists alone .Ever if you are right about atheists/darwinists you are wrong on the approach(your attitude make darwinists more frozen /opinionated in their approach and secondly make you proud-because you keep comparing yourself to lower standard atheists and not to saints that are the right standard to compare yourself. ) 😉
Martin_r: I am just trying to explain, that Darwinists invented a fancy term “phenotypic plasticity” to justify the existence of this camouflage feature, because it doesn’t fit the classic mutations-selection theory…
Hmmm . . . let’s look. Here’s the definition of phenotypic plasticity from Wikipedia:
In reality, these species can switch off their eyes development “at will” — to save energy.
Well, I’d like to see your evidence for that. Plus: how can an organism turn off its eye development ‘at will’? I mean, what is the mechanism? How is it done? Can you create, in a lab, the exact conditions so as to trigger that reaction?
Do you get in JVL ?
Do you know what ‘get in’ means in Britain?
Whistler: you keep comparing yourself to lower standard atheists and not to saints that are the right standard to compare yourself.
Especially if the Saints didn’t do science.
@25
Haploid. That’s why his middle initial is H.
PM1 writes:
Then he was born a biological female. Perhaps he self-identified as male at an early age and Mary, being the progressive she was, arranged for testosterone shots to prevent breast development and permit facial hair. Jordan Peterson would be appalled.
PyrrhoManiac1: Haploid. That’s why his middle initial is H.
Ah, I thought that was for Harold. You know: Our father, who art in heaven, Harold be thy name.
JVL,
A typo. I meant “do you get it JVL” ?
The evidence for this designed feature is, that many evolutionary unrelated species lost their eyes the same way independently. E.g. blind cave beetles, blind cave spiders and the famous blind cave fish. And who knows what other species have this ability.
This can be explained only by design. Speaking of a lab experiment — I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SUCH AN EXPERIMENT. AND I AM 100% SURE HOW IT WILL END. ALL THE MENTIONED SPECIES WILL LOSE THEIR EYES “AT WILL”… and most probably, if there is light again, they will regain the sight. The only question is, if it will happen in 1 generation, 2, or more generations. My bet is, that it will happen in 1 generation.
And what is the mechanism for that ?
From an engineering point of view, it could be as follows: First, there has to be some light sensitive sensor(s). Most probably that sensor(s) is located in cave fishes’ eyes. Or on its body (like in peppered moth’s caterpillar case). At low or zero light, this light sensitive sensor triggers an epigenetic change — it puts epigenetic marks on DNA to silence gene/genes responsible for eyes development.
This is from an mainstream paper:
I have also mentioned the other example of “phenotypic plasticity”. The peppered moth caterpillar.
The mechanism is pretty simple …
from a mainstream paper
or
… I BET, THAT ADULT PEPPERED MOTH CAN CHANGE THE COLOR “AT WILL” THE SAME WAY ITS CATERPILLAR CAN DO … no Darwinian evolution, no natural selection needed … just design. When the background color changes for some reason (e.g. industrial pollution), adult peppered moth will change its wings color “at will” to match the new color. (Are you aware of, that during that industrial pollution, other 100 moths species changed their wings color to dark too ? It wasn’t only the peppered moth. Such a coincidence :))))))
Again, all these features have nothing to do with natural selection or Darwin’s evolution. This change will happen anyway. With or without natural selection. It is a designed feature – an adaptive camouflage. You people (Darwinists) have been misinterpreting the reality for 150 years. That is why you had to invent that “phenotypic plasticity” term. Because you were surprised by the ability of these species — but all these abilities can be only explained by design.
PS: you posted a definition of “phenotypic plasticity”. One may ask, what is the difference between the definition of Darwinian evolution and the definition of “phenotypic plasticity”. To me it sounds entirely the same :))))))))
🙂 You seem to be lost. Science doesn’t help to improve your morality, science brings you vanity and imorality…and the delusion of knowing the truth.
Martin_r: The evidence for this designed feature is, that many evolutionary unrelated species lost their eyes the same way independently. E.g. blind cave beetles, blind cave spiders and the famous blind cave fish. And who knows what other species have this ability. This can be explained only by design.
No, it can also be explained by the ability to see not being highly favourable to generations upon generations of whatever species. AND it would say that the lose of eyes happened over long periods of time not suddenly, by force of will.
So, what evidence do you have that the lose of eyes happened quickly by force of will?
My bet is, that it will happen in 1 generation.
Do you have evidence that any such transition has happened within one generation?
At low or zero light, this light sensitive sensor triggers an epigenetic change — it puts epigenetic marks on DNA to silence gene/genes responsible for eyes development.
Like how? What kind of ‘epigenetic mark’ could turn off the production of eyes in one generation?
If you have the evidence that what you suppose happens then we can talk. Do you have such evidence?
Also, you do realise that by claiming that epigenetic changes change cause radical morphological changes you are undercutting one of the basic ID premises: that major morphological changes require too many genetic changes to have come about naturally, they must be designed by an outside designer.
If epigenetic changes can, say, eliminate eyes in one generation then can epigenetic changes, willed or not, create new body plans?
Also, if force of will can eliminate eyes in one generation then why can’t humans, via force of will, become taller or faster or smarter in one generation? Can I ‘will’ my offspring to have green eyes? Can I will my offspring to have blonde hair? Can I will my offspring to be immune to polio?
Sandy: You seem to be lost. Science doesn’t help to improve your morality, science brings you vanity and imorality…and the delusion of knowing the truth.
I’m not lost; I was making a sardonic comment. I guess you missed that.
JVL,
one more note regarding the mentioned blind cave fish experiment.
I would like to supervise it. Because I don’t trust Darwinists. They cheat all the time …
JVL
long period of time :)))) here you go – 1 generation… like I said … and I swear I wasn’t aware of the following paper:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080107120911.htm#:~:text=The%20study%20suggests%20that%20genetic,evolutionary%20change%20in%20one%20generation.&text=Blind%20cavefish%20whose%20eyes%20have,be%20made%20to%20see%20again.
JVL
long period of time :)))) here you go – 1 generation… like I said … and I swear I wasn’t aware of the following paper:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080107120911.htm#:~:text=The%20study%20suggests%20that%20genetic,evolutionary%20change%20in%20one%20generation.&text=Blind%20cavefish%20whose%20eyes%20have,be%20made%20to%20see%20again.
Martin_r: I would like to supervise it. Because I don’t trust Darwinists. They cheat all the time …
You should do that experiment then. It wouldn’t be that expensive. Buy some guppies at your local pet shop and have a go.
The study suggests that genetic engineering can override, at least in part, half a million years of evolutionary change in one generation.
Genetic engineering is not an epigenetic change though is it? Also, what does ‘in part’ mean? Have you actually read the article? You do realise that most of the link you published is not necessary. And that no epigenetic conditions were invoked.
JVL
yes, perhaps I should. And with spiders, shrimps, beetles as well …
I agree, however, it shows that such a change is “technically” possible in one generation. That is all what I wanted to say.
Anyway, and like I said many times, you Darwinists have been misinterpreting the reality for 150 years. Blind cave fish or peppered moth is just one example …
JVL
here you go, 2023 article
like I said … a designed feature … It can’t be more obvious ….
Martin_r: yes, perhaps I should. And with spiders, shrimps, beetles as well …
I think you should.
I agree, however, it shows that such a change is “technically” possible in one generation. That is all what I wanted to say.
The article describes how different collections of fish who lost their site owning to different genetic modifications, when cross-breed, can create offspring who can see. In other words, some of the offspring will NOT have the genetic changes which led to blindness. How is that controversial?
Two of these subterranean species aren’t just blind, they’ve lost their eyes entirely. The other five still have eyes, but they’re degenerated.
How is that indicative of design? Some have no eyes anymore. Some have degenerated eyes. How long did it take for the eyeless spiders to lose their eyes? One generation? Any evidence for that?
JVL
I don’t. But I don’t think that it is that important — whether this change will happen in 1, 2 or more generations. What matter is, that the ‘energy saving process’ has been triggered and is in progress …
JVL
obviously, these epigenetic marks can be or are reset by the cross-breading process.
JVL
How is that indicative of design?
It is simple – the process of sight loss started in a cave – where is no light. This process did not start on the surface. This process was triggered by lack of light. Nothing to do with Darwin or natural selection. This process will always start over and over again when there is no light. That’s how it is indicative of design.
Martin_r: I don’t. But I don’t think that it is that important — whether this change will happen in 1, 2 or more generations.
You don’t think having evidence is important?
obviously, these epigenetic marks can be or are reset by the cross-breading process.
The article (which is not the actual research paper) describes genetic changes, NOT epigenetic ‘marks’.
What are epigenetic ‘marks’? How do they affect the genomic expression? What chemical structure do they have?
JVL,
forget about everything I wrote so far.
Focus on the following:
Martin_r: the process of sight loss started in a cave – where is no light. This process did not start on the surface. This process was triggered by lack of light. Nothing to do with Darwin or natural selection. This process will always start over and over again when there is no light. That’s how it is indicative of design.
The whole idea of unguided evolution is that allele frequency will change partially influenced by environmental conditions such as lack of light. I don’t see what not being on the surface has to do with anything.
Eyes are ‘expensive’ organs to have; they consume lots of resources. IF they are not being used then an individual with defective eyesight will not have a disadvantage finding a mate and creating offspring AND, in fact, may have an advantage if they have more bodily resources to commit to other things. Slowly, over generations, IF there is an advantage to NOT having sight, the sightless organisms will outcompete the sighted organisms.
This is all really simple and easy to understand. AND it makes sense. You don’t need to hypothesise some unfound programming or an unfound programmer; by Ockham’s razor the unguided hypothesis is the most parsimonious, i.e. it has the fewest unknown processes.
Why don’t you do your proposed experiments and see what you get?
JVL
wrong … you don’t seem to understand your own theory. Darwinists claim, that mutations are random — can occur anytime, in various DNA locations, and it DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER THERE IS OR ISN’T LIGHT. And then, your natural selection allegedly kicks in, and allegedly selects those mutations that can help survive in no light conditions (in our model case).
I hope you agree with this … This is the main idea of your theory.
But this is not what is happening in real life. In real life, if you put these species into a cave, where is no light, they will lose its eyes. EVERYTIME. NO LIGHT enviroment triggers this change. EVERYTIME.
THIS PROCESS NEVER STARTS ON SURFACE.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE ?
JVL
let’s pretend, that I already made these experiments … the result is, that all these species (fishes, shrimps, spiders, beetles) lost their eyes … everytime when there wasn’t light. In one or two generation.
How would YOU interpret these results ?
Martin_r: Darwinists claim, that mutations are random — can occur anytime, in various DNA locations, and it DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER THERE IS OR ISN’T LIGHT.
You’re missing my point: the allele frequency in the population changes based on which DNA configurations have some advantage OR, at least, aren’t fatal.
And then, your natural selection allegedly kicks in, and allegedly selects those mutations that can help survive in no light conditions (in our model case).
IF a particular DNA configuration incurs a benefit that leads to more offspring then it will have a better chance of growing in number in the population.
In real life, if you put these species into a cave, where is no light, they will lose its eyes. EVERYTIME. NO LIGHT enviroment triggers this change. EVERYTIME.
THIS PROCESS NEVER STARTS ON SURFACE.
Why would it start on the surface where there is light?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE ?
I understand what I am saying.
let’s pretend, that I already made these experiments … the result is, that all these species (fishes, shrimps, spiders, beetles) lost their eyes … everytime when there wasn’t light. In one or two generation. How would YOU interpret these results ?
But you didn’t run those experiments so we don’t know what you would get.
Martin-r
Pre-programmed response to the environment. This has nothing to do with random mutations. Clearly.
I think I can make an analogy that will clarify the logical aspects of the arguments here although I have almost no understanding of the biology involved.
Imagine that you’re looking at a printout of the iterations of a Dawkins-type weasel simulation. You’ve settled down expecting to see how the computer grinds away at letters that don’t match the target string.
You are surprised though to see that instead of grinding away, the target phrase is reached in one or two iterations. Now, if you’re a confirmed materialist, should you be happy with this result or not?
You could say “well I guess evolution is more powerful than we thought.” But at the same time you would know that this was not a demonstration of the feedback mechanism that is supposed to be the cornerstone of evolutionary theory. Certainly if it happened more than once you would realize that you were looking at a process where the creative part had essentially already been done – sort of like when the oak tree produces an acorn. This would be something to be explained and not something that would have explanatory power in itself.
The analogy should hold unless there are many more generations involved than what I’m hearing about here.
Jvl wrote:To be clear: the idea is that moths whose colour is highly contrasting with the background are easy to spot by predators so that the ones who blend in better have a higher chance of survival and therefore produce more of the next generation. It’s a very simple concept but you seem to have completely missed it.
Does that go for the cuddle fish and chameleon as well?
Es58: Does that go for the cuddle fish and chameleon as well?
I don’t know as I couldn’t find the reference to those cases. But I would anticipate it’s something similar.
Es58 @63
or does that go for rabbit’s seasonal fur color change too ?
or does that go for rapid adaptive color change in crustaceans. (e.g. crabs, shrimps etc)
There is a 500-pages book on adaptive color change.
Adaptive color change AKA camouflage is an ultimate proof of design/engineering. Not to mention, that to design such a adaptive color change feature is a very complex engineering problem, no wonder that military engineers struggle to replicate this feat.
Darwinists have to have a very high level of faith to believe that an adaptive color change evolved repeatedly and independently in so many evolutionary unrelated species.
But we here on UD already know, that Darwinists believe in miracles …
JVL
I think that you don’t understand what I am saying (because of my bad English) or you don’t want to understand….
Please confirm that I got the following right
Is this how your theory works or not ?
further:
Why? Because random mutations can occur anytime, anywhere, that is why it is called random.
Or do DNA copying errors only occur in caves where is no light ?
JVL, seriously, you don’t seem to understand your own theory …
Don’t overlook the soma/germ line distinction. Only heritable variation in the germ-line (strictly speaking, the phenotypic expression of the germ-line, an individual in a breeding population) is available for selection to act on.
And selection works with rearrangements of existing variation that happen at meiosis, as well as on novel mutations.
Alan Fox
it is always selection …. selection …. selection ….
You people will never get it… YOU HAVE TO HAVE THOSE MUTATIONS FIRST … TO SELECT FROM …
That is what I talked about …
And, your theory claim, that those mutations can occur anytime … DOESN’T MATTER IF THERE IS LIGHT OR NO LIGHT CONDITION … because copying errors occur independently of light conditions … I hope we agree on that …
So you have to explain (if you don’t agree with the design theory), why the blindness mutations always occur only in caves and never on surface.
Do you get it Alan Fox ?
Origenes @61
it has nothing to with random mutations, neither it has with natural selection — that was main point.
Because these people, it is like “natural selection” all the time …
Natural selection is a Darwinian conjecture — a misinterpretation of reality, and it is sad to see how many ID/creationists still accepting this misinterpretation of reality by using and accepting these Darwinian terms, despite it is clear that it has nothing to do with reality …
Seriously? Eyes are organs for detecting light. There is an energy cost in growing them and a survival benefit in having them which outstrips the cost where there is light. Where a population of organisms becomes isolated in an environmental niche without light, the growing of eyes becomes a cost without benefit.
If individuals incur mutations that limit the growth of eyes in the lightless environment, that grants a marginal advantage in differential survival and reproduction. Such processes are widely observed in cave-dwelling fauna.
Ah, I see I overlooked Martin-r’s error. Mutations happen everywhere. Mutations proliferate if the niche finds them beneficial. Mutations are eliminated if the niche finds them deleterious.
Martin_r:
It is true that mutations are random (with respect to fitness) and can occur anytime. As Alan Fox pointed out, the ones that occur in germ-line cells get passed onto the offspring. Some of those mutations are very bad and the offspring does not survive. Some are neutral and have no observable effects. Some are beneficial in that they give the offspring some advantage over others without that mutation. BUT ‘advantage’ depends on the environment which ‘selects’ individuals who are better able to exploit the environmental niche they live in. So . . .
Take some fish, put some of them in a lovely stream in a forest, put some in a lightless cave but make sure both populations have enough food. Leave them there for a long time, i.e. many generations. No guarantees (because mutations don’t happen on demand) but let’s suppose both populations have a mutation introduced through one individual in each population which degrades visual acuity. In the forest stream that fish would find it much harder to ‘compete’: find food and mates. The fish in the lightless cave would be just as able as its compatriots. The fish in the forest has less of a chance to procreate than the fish in the cave So the mutations which degrades vision has a much better chance of being passed on and ‘fixed’ in the cave population.
That’s how things work without design. The environment helps determine which varieties are better able to pass on their genes. (There are other selection pressures along with genetic drift but I’m just focusing on the natural selection acting on random mutations part.)
The mutations happen with and without light, on and below the surface. But the mutations which pass on an advantage are judged by the particular environmental niche they exist in.
You are wrong to say that the blindness mutations only occur underground but it’s only underground that they have a better chance of being passed on and becoming common in the population.
These concepts are really simple and easy to understand. And I KNOW they have been explained many, many, many, many times at Uncommon Descent.
(PS – yes this is basically just a longer statement of what Alan Fox already said just above.)
My wife says I’m hopeless at explaining things so it can’t do any harm. 😉
Speaking of a Creationist home schooling mother of nine with a high school education, I enjoy seeing the well cosseted pompously credentialed ScD PhD BMOC and BGOC Scientists at NASA make fools of themselves.
And fools is what they made of themselves with their defintion of life:.
“Life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.”
By NASA’s definition, I’m not alive.
And neither are my kids or hubby. Or the dog. Or the tomato plants in our garden.
Here’s why:
1) Any living thing, when looked at as chemical system, is not self sustaining. The reason is the Law of Dissipation of Energy. (also called the 2nd law of thermodynamics) Living things need external sources of free energy, such as food and oxygen for animals, and sunlight and CO2 for plants..
2) Darwinian Evolution is a distressed theory that struggles to explain how me my kids or our tomato plant got here. I mean, even among Evolutionary Naturalists, Lamarkian Evolution currnetly offers superior explanatory power and is ascendant while Darwinian Evolution declines.
Can they really be ignorant of Physical Chemistry 101?
And can they really not know the current status of their own Theory of Evolution?
Your Tax dollars at work.
At least if you beleive our NASA Scientist Public Servants who work from home are actually working from home.
🙂 Unfortunatelly for darwinists ,information doesn’t appear by chance. All discussions about mutations are nonsensical because randomness doesnt create information and doesn’t improve the already existing information.
TLH at 74,
Remember, anything but God. NASA keeps talking about life just appearing on other planets. So whenever they find water or some gas, it automatically indicates life. Until they actually find something alive out there, they have no evidence. I suspect they also think inorganic chemicals can become alive under the right – but unknown – circumstances.
JVL, Alan Fox
FINALLY YOU GOT IT. THAT’S A PROGRESS.
Now back to the problem.
The problem with cave fish and other blind cave species is, that THEY HAVEN’T LOST THEIR EYES because of DNA mutations. Also, they have lost color / pigmentation for the same reason — to save energy.
In first case, eyes genes were silenced. In second case most probably happened the same (pigmentation genes have been silenced)
And we are back to my main concern — how you Darwinists misinterpret the reality.
THIS GENE SILENCING (via epigenetics) WILL HAPPEN ONLY IN CAVE, because there is no light. No light-condition will trigger gene silencing. ANYTIME. AS WE CAN SEE IT IN MANY CAVE SPECIES.
Main point: This had nothing to do with Darwin, random mutations or Natural selection. That is why you people invented that term “Phenotypic plasticity”. It is a Darwinian trick how to not use the word Design. Darwinists have been misinterpreting reality for 150 years.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/blind-cave-fish-may-trade-color-for-energy/
Sandy @75
And the problem is enlarged by natural selection.
In the unlikely scenario that random mutations do stumble upon a new solution, natural selection lies in wait to kill the miracle off.
Perhaps a more fitting name would be “natural elimination”, because all it does is kill off perfectly viable organisms on a whim. It is in the business of destroying information. So, the problem for random mutations to find functional information is made even more difficult by the destructive actions of natural selection.
Nope. An empty niche is a golden opportunity for a species that finds itself there. “Perfectly viable”? 🙂
You are confusing the opportunity of existing variation within a population’s gene pool to exploit a niche change with new variation arising within an existing population that raises fitness in an existing niche.
There’s a helpful Wikipedia article entitled Phenotypic Plasticity here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_plasticity
Here’s a paper on how phenotypic plasticity results in sex ratio changes in reptiles.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2020.00035/full
Alan Fox @79
Capable of living. A coherent organism capable of homeostasis and other miracles.
Not if it kills you, which seems to be the rule:
Less than 1% of the viable species, that random mutations happen to stumble upon, escape destruction by natural elimination. Natural elimination is in the business of destroying biological information.
So, the problem for random mutations to find functional information is made even more difficult by the destructive actions of natural elimination.
Origenes, I hold that ‘natural elimination’ is a more fitting term than even ‘natural preservation’ is, which Charles Darwin himself conceded was a better tern than ‘natural selection’ is:
Bornagain @84
Darwin wants his followers to focus on the less than 1% that natural elimination does not destroy, and calls that “natural selection” or “natural preservation.” This takes “looking at the positive side of things” to an absurd extreme.
Honesty should have compelled Darwin to acknowledge that natural elimination only hampers evolution. Obviously, it does not help to eliminate more than 99% of the valuable biological information that random mutations manage to come up with. Especially if we consider the fact that for random mutations to find even one single new protein fold is close to a sheer impossibility.
This will destroy the niche if the variation is significant.
Otherwise, this means nothing new can happen unless the ecology is protected. This implies all variation must lead to trivial results. It’s what we see.
Question: is the extinction numbers used based on any hard evidence. I read the Wikipedia article and it seemed to be mostly assertions.
Origenes: Less than 1% of the viable species, that random mutations happen to stumble upon, escape destruction by natural elimination.
And your alternative hypothesis is that some designer chose to eliminate all those species. Because? Why were they created in the first place?
Unguided evolution IS wasteful, no denying that. However, the notion that information is forever lost is fallacious. Remember that it appears that some traits have arisen independently at different times and places. That means that even if a trait or characteristic ‘died out’ in one region it could come back elsewhere.
Martin_r: THIS GENE SILENCING (via epigenetics) WILL HAPPEN ONLY IN CAVE, because there is no light. No light-condition will trigger gene silencing. ANYTIME. AS WE CAN SEE IT IN MANY CAVE SPECIES.
Main point: This had nothing to do with Darwin, random mutations or Natural selection. That is why you people invented that term “Phenotypic plasticity”. It is a Darwinian trick how to not use the word Design. Darwinists have been misinterpreting reality for 150 years.
So . . . you think epigenetics are part of design?
(I’m not saying that only epigenetics leads to loss of sight in dark conditions; I’m just trying to figure out why epigenetics are not considered part of the unguided processes.)
JVL @87
My alternative hypothesis is that “five billion species” is part of the Darwinian fantasy.
The whole concept is a non-starter: random mutations are stumbling through vast search spaces struggling to find even one single new protein fold, and next, to make matters even worse, natural elimination kills it off in most cases.
Of course, it is not “fallacious.” In Darwinian fantasyland, natural elimination culled over 99% of all species, which must necessarily imply a huge loss of biological information.
JVL: “Remember that it appears that some traits have arisen independently at different times and places. That means that even if a trait or characteristic ‘died out’ in one region it could come back elsewhere.”
JVL, do you realize that the term ‘convergent evolution’, as it it is used by Darwinists, is actually an oxymoron that, in reality, means ‘a miracle must have happened over and over again’?
Ba77,
Evolution promoters have only two options:
1) Out of chaos, order.
2) Out of order, order.
For some reason, they keep picking number 1.
Origenes: My alternative hypothesis is that “five billion species” is part of the Darwinian fantasy.
So . . . there haven’t been that many?
The whole concept is a non-starter: random mutations are stumbling through vast search spaces struggling to find even one single new protein fold
Ah, no, that’s not correct. Take a viable life form. It’s going to create offspring that are not identical to the parent. There will be some variations. Some of the variations die off quickly, some don’t. The ones that survive and make more variations pass on (some of) their genomes to their offspring. There is no ‘stumbling through vast search spaces’. They’re just small steps pushing outward from a starting point.
In Darwinian fantasyland, natural elimination culled over 99% of all species, which must necessarily imply a huge loss of biological information.
“Information” can be recreated. AND, your alternative is that some designer killed off all the extinct species for some reason. Unless you are denying all those extinct species existed. You do believe in dinosaurs and trilobites and so forth don’t you?
Bornagain77: do you realize that the term ‘convergent evolution’, as it it is used by Darwinists, is actually an oxymoron that, in reality, means ‘a miracle must have happened over and over again’?
No, that’s not what it means. It means that life has created the same phenotypic variation multiple times in multiple places. YOU think that those incidents are miracles done by some undetected designer for some undefined reason.
By the way, posting links to unguided evolution denying website and people is not being ‘scientific’; it’s just showing your confirmation bias. IF you want to consider ALL the data, as a good scientists would, you would link to all the thousands of articles elucidating examples of convergent evolution as well.
JVL at 92,
Evolution has no goals and no brain. Or you can accept the fantasy Richard Dawkins has regarding “climbing Mount Improbable.” Information can be recreated? How? They wrote it down somewhere?
You don’t believe in a Designer, do you? Resorting to something you don’t believe in doesn’t solve any problems. Do you accept that dinosaurs were killed off by some large object that only selected them and left every other creature alive?
JVL: “Information” can be recreated.”
Since unguided material processes have never demonstrated the capacity to create immaterial information in the first place, then claiming unguided material processes ‘recreated’ immaterial information that was lost is only to exponentially exasperate what has yet to be explained via unguided material processes.
And JVL, you have the gall to claim others are being unscientific? 🙂 LOL
Tell you what JVL, before you call others unscientific, show yourself to be ‘scientific, falsify ID, and collect yourself a cool 10 million dollars in the process.
Relatd: Information can be recreated? How? They wrote it down somewhere?
If a combination of random variation and cumulative selection invented wings once it can do it again.
Resorting to something you don’t believe in doesn’t solve any problems.
Which is why I didn’t do that.
Do you accept that dinosaurs were killed off by some large object that only selected them and left every other creature alive?
No, the asteroid that helped kill off the dinosaurs got rid of a lot of other species as well.
Your view of what unguided evolutionary theory actually says is naive and very mistaken.
Bornagain77: Since unguided material processes have never demonstrated the capacity to create immaterial information in the first place, then claiming unguided material processes ‘recreated’ immaterial information that was lost is only to exponentially exasperate what has yet to be explained via unguided material processes.
I think it has been demonstrated that unguided, natural processes in combination with cumulative selection CAN do what is claimed they can do.
you have the gall to claim others are being unscientific?
You certainly seem to be very selective in what you consider to be true, remembering that you, yourself, don’t have the academic background to even understand some of the basic mathematics involved. Taking things on faith is not being scientific.
falsify ID
I think that’s already been accomplished.
That’s backwards. Too rapid a change in the niche a population of organisms will result in extinction. But saltation (hopeful monsters) can’t and doesn’t happen because a sudden large change in an individual in a population obviates the new genotype spreading via sexual reproduction.
You are overlooking cumulative change over time.
“If a combination of random variation and cumulative selection invented wings once it can do it again.”
It can’t do it once, so it can’t do it again.
Verse:
JVL @96
Assuming such can happen, the credit goes entirely to random variation. “Cumulative selection” did not help, instead, it did not obstruct. If wings come into existence due to evolution, then it means that natural elimination left the process “untouched.” It means that this time, it didn’t do what it usually does, namely, obstruct the process by eliminating one of the species of the chain leading up to the wing.
JVL at 96,
“… selection invented wings once it can do it again.”
Invented? You mean created, don’t you? Unguided Evolution has no creative/invention ability. You are only resorting to the God substitute idea.
Yes, I’ve seen the “99% of all species that ever lived are extinct” claim made from time to time. I wonder what evidence the claim is made on. Another claim is that the vast majority of species leave no fossil evidence. Time for some googling.
Bornagain77: It can’t do it once, so it can’t do it again.
Stomping your feet and pouting and saying: look how complicated this stuff is isn’t being scientific either. Just because you don’t understand how it all works doesn’t make it a miracle.
Did you ever consider that you, yourself, started out as a single fertilised cell? As your cells divided and multiplied they differentiated into different kinds of tissues and organs. And some of that growth pattern continued after you were born. You went from a cell to an adult human being in a few years. Do you think that ‘miracle’ was guided or tweaked all along the way? When your lungs first appeared was that another miracle or just an unguided natural process responding to its environment? Was your body told by some designer: looks like it’s time to make lungs now. Hey, we need some eyes here, better get to that. What happens with people who are born crippled or deformed? Is that an example of the natural process going wonky or some designer taking a coffee break at the wrong time?
You think??? And, other than your fevered imagination, where might that evidence actually be?
You should read Neil Shubin’s recent book: Some Assembly Required. He explains how just controlling when certain genes are ‘turned on or off’ can make different phenotypes.
JVL: “I think it has been demonstrated that unguided, natural processes in combination with cumulative selection CAN do what is claimed they can do.”
You think??? And, other than your fevered imagination, where might that evidence actually be?
Not at all. Mutations and other sorts of variation that enter the gene pool are random. The selection process weeds out phenotypes carrying less successful (in that niche) genotypes, clearing the field for the fitter (suited to that niche) members of the gene pool to proliferate.
🙂 Who can list for me those 5 billion species that were extinct?
99% extinct?
Only 250.000 are in the fossil record and 90% are still living today . Fossil record is complete so logical deduction is that all animals are created and do not “evolve” in the darwinian sense . No darwinist saw an animal evolving into another animal ,he/she just believes that happened. It’s impressive that a person can believe such nonsense but that doesn’t make it true.
This 99% extinct species is “a deduction” based on the darwinian fable and billions of years.
JVL, you do realize that Embryonic development was excluded from the modern synthesis as ‘irrelevant’ do you not?
In other words JVL, you, as a Darwinist, have no clue how embryological development came about!
Of further note:
Verse:
This will lead to the destruction of the niche as the fitter destroy the others
This then leads to destruction of the fitter itself as the niche/new ecology will be destroyed due to the new species actually being fitter. So whatever change there is, it must be small. The greater the change in fitness, the faster will the new species eliminate itself.
There is no time for other species to adapt because it takes too long. So even if new variation did lead to advances in fitness (no evidence of this happening) the process has to be trivial and never lead anywhere significant.
Aside: The term fitness is a nebulous term and can mean anything. But whatever it is, it has to be trivial. Significant changes as seen in the fossil record would definitely eliminate the ecologies unless somehow controlled. That’s the logic.
There are three proposed methods for life advancement.
Darwinian processes which are extremely slow and never actually observed except for basic genetics
Punctuated equilibrium which happens more sudden as new proteins develop silently somewhere in the genome but leads to larger changes. This eliminate the new species even quicker
Then ther is emergence
Do you know what a niche is in biology, Jerry? Though at least five major mass extinctions have occurred in Earth’s history.
Can’t make any sense of this. Would you mind rephrasing or clarifying.
Well, following the last major mass extinction event, the dinosaurs (those that survived the initial catastrophy) were unable to adapt to the subsequent loss of food source due to the ash clouds preventing plant growth and they starved. Small nocturnal mammals were presented with a mountain of carrion and the opportunity to fill the vast niches made empty by the bolide.
The concept is quite simple, once you understand fitness is relative and applied to the immediate niche environment within which the breeding population of organisms is located.
The golden mole is supremely adapted to the Namib desert and the great white shark is supremely adapted to ocean life. Neither species would survive swapping their habitat for the other.
Origenes: Assuming such can happen, the credit goes entirely to random variation. “Cumulative selection” did not help, instead, it did not obstruct. If wings come into existence due to evolution, then it means that natural elimination left the process “untouched.”
Unguided evolution is (partly) the combination of inheritable variation AND cumulative selection. You’d get nothing without the combination. Variation alone doesn’t cut it; cumulative selection without variation doesn’t cut it either. These concepts are actually very simple and, considering how long you’ve been commenting here, the apparent fact that you still don’t understand them is astonishing.
Alan Fox @105
The fact that the niche is restrictive, that it kills off perfectly viable organisms that happen to be less suited or not suited, is exactly the problem for evolution. It does not help to find biological information, instead, it makes it much harder.
Darwin’s assumption has always been that organisms are easy to make. The role of natural selection was to cull the abundance of organisms that random variations come up with. To bring some order in what is “so easy” to find.
Now that we are beginning to understand how difficult making organisms is, and how huge the search space for biological information actually is, it becomes clear that natural selection only obstructs the search.
Bornagain77: And, other than your fevered imagination, where might that evidence actually be?
There are literally hundreds of thousands (if not more) research papers that have been published over the last century which provide evidence. Not every one has the time or ability to absorb all that but fortunately there are lots and lots of books written for non-specialised readers which explain the data. I found Neil Shubin’s recent book Some Assembly Required extremely informative and up-to-date. You should read it.
you do realize that Embryonic development was excluded from the modern synthesis as ‘irrelevant’ do you not?
It was just a comparison; an example of something very complicated coming from something much simpler WITHOUT any designer intervention.
This just shows you have no idea what you are talking about.
I described the niche process you constantly repeat and you do not understand it. Then you provide something that has no relation to biological change as an example.
Thank you for validating my logic.
Aside: i described the natural selection process a couple of weeks ago and you said you didn’t understand it. Maybe you should read some more.
Aside2: a niche is not a mass extinction. A mass extinction may lead to several new niches. So you have it backwards. The creation of a niche could be an extremely small event.
Sandy: Fossil record is complete
Are you saying that NO species existed in the past except what is represented in the fossil record? If yes then what justification do you have for thinking so?
Alan Fox @109,
Yes, indeed. There was the evidence of the global flood (like the one on Mars) mentioned in the Bible and hundreds of derivative legends across the earth that was followed by the ice age, which was driven by the climate changes from the warmer oceans, and the evidence of the mega volcanoes that also reduced the solar radiation available on earth.
While most small nocturnal mammals are vegetarian, you’re right that they were present with the dinosaurs.
-Q
Origenes: The fact that the niche is restrictive, that it kills off perfectly viable organisms that happen to be less suited or not suited
And those that are better ‘suited’ are rewarded.
Darwin’s assumption has always been that organisms are easy to make.
There are easy to make when you start with one that already exists.
Now that we are beginning to understand how difficult making organisms is, and how huge the search space for biological information actually is, it becomes clear that natural selection only obstructs the search.
There is no ‘search’. Each organism produces offspring which are not identical to their parents. There’s variations.
‘Search’ implies a goal or target. IF you think humans are designed by God then, of course, you think there is/was a target. But that’s NOT what unguided evolutionary theory says. Again, your misunderstanding of the basics is pretty astonishing.
By the way: I can’t help but notice that you have not said how many species you think have ever existed on the planet. What is your count? Do you agree with Sandy who thinks the fossil record is ‘complete’?
My heritage is British. I’m brought up to be polite. Let me be blunt. It is you who who have no idea how biological evolution works. It is your comments that make no sense.
JVL @117
Wow! Well, I agree with you that you have to say this in order to defend natural elimination. So, starting with a bacterium, you claim that it easy to make e.g. a bat….
Only when organisms are easy to make, it can be argued that there is a positive role for natural selection.
I would estimate that thousands have gone extinct.
Yes.
Thank Dunning and Kruger.
Oh dear. I should have been clearer in saying I didn’t understand your comment, which made no sense.
Good grief. How you get there from what I wrote is a mystery. Of course a niche is not an extinction. An extinction event empties a niche or niches.
That was my point when talking of the end if the Cretaceous.
The niche of the population of E. coli living in your gut is small.
Jerry posted:
Just to be clear, what Jerry has written, that I quote in this comment is complete balderdash, utter rubbish, strawman nonsense.
Let’s see : you believe that chemicals randomnly created life , you believe that some animals become diferent type of animals, you believe that existed some species that nobody saw…and you think that you are the reasonable one. 🙂
JVL thinks that if you just imagine that you waited long enough sometime in the distant past, his/her pet absurd speculations are science.
Andrew
Sandy:
Let’s focus on you answering the questions I asked: Are you saying that NO species existed in the past except what is represented in the fossil record? If yes then what justification do you have for thinking so?
Asauber: thinks that if you just imagine that you waited long enough sometime in the distant past, his/her pet absurd speculations are science.
Aside from that being insulting it’s clearly NOT what I think nor what unguided evolutionary theory says. I find it hard to believe that you have actually understood the basics arguments involved.
If you’re not going to even try and engage in the actual arguments why should I bother responding to you?
JVL at 113, FYI, bluff and bluster is NOT evidence!
“If you’re not going to even try and engage in the actual arguments why should I bother responding to you?”
JVL,
It’s entirely up to you whether or not you want to respond to me. You do, however, appeal to the wondrous mists of a long and far away past to prop up your viewpoint, so you’re not the only one who gets insulted during our exchanges.
Andrew
JVL,
To make it simple, JVL, the EVIDENCE of design is all around us, right here, right now, for you to observe.
Andrew
Andrew,
No, no. The words JVL writes are random. Somehow, through unknown means, they self-assemble into a precise order that anyone can read. The same with living things. So remember: out of disorder, order.
🙂 🙂
Yes there are no species other than fossil record or living one. If you think there were other species that were extinct [a belief based on a theory based on beliefs of Darwin] the burden is on you to prove that . 😉
is this projection?
Everything I said is logical and based on evidence.
I suggest that you explain how biological evolution works.
You will be the first one ever to do so. No links or references for this because we are just dealing with how.
This would then require several examples that are well documented. You can use links for this.
By the way why don’t you define words like “niche” and “fitter” as part of this. Both are rather nebulous words. Anything could be a niche and fitter could mean lots of things.
Origenes: Well, I agree with you that you have to say this in order to defend natural elimination. So, starting with a bacterium, you claim that it easy to make e.g. a bat….
Not easy, it takes many, many, many, many, many generations. AND you don’t know ahead of time what you’re going to get.
If you think the fossil record is complete . . . can you:
Find the stuff that any given species ate? They had to eat some other species after all.
Find the stuff the survivors of the asteroid impact ate?
Also: how many species do you think there have been then?
Bornagain77: bluff and bluster is NOT evidence!
I agree. But when we ask you to scientifically justify your stance you frequently site YouTube videos or articles (not research papers) from anti-evolutionary sites or blogs.
I can point to hundreds, thousands of research papers. I can point to many, many textbooks and other books explaining and clarifying the evidence in favour of unguided evolution.
How many ID textbooks are there? How many ID journals are there? How many peer-reviewed ID research papers are there?
You’ve got a lot of catching up to do. And since you, yourself, can’t do that catching up . . . who can? Who is doing that work? Where is the research? Where are the papers?
Asauber:
You have clear history of NOT answering queries that have been put to your regarding your stance. You strategically avoid dealing with issues. It seems to me that when you haven’t got a good response you fall back on insult and bluff.
To make it simple, JVL, the EVIDENCE of design is all around us, right here, right now, for you to observe.
Where are the peer-reviewed papers? Where are the academic journals? Where are the textbooks? Where is the ongoing research?
Please don’t resort to the frequently used conspiracy theory response. The churches in America had a lot more money than the research institutes; it would be a simple thing to find the cash to set up a lab or a journal in support of ID. But, it doesn’t happen. Why is that?
Relatd: The words JVL writes are random. Somehow, through unknown means, they self-assemble into a precise order that anyone can read. The same with living things. So remember: out of disorder, order.
As usual, when you run out of arguments you resort to insults and showing off your misunderstanding of what unguided evolution actually says.
Sandy: If you think there were other species that were extinct [a belief based on a theory based on beliefs of Darwin] the burden is on you to prove that .
If you actually cared about that you would have spent a lot of time reading the research arguing for such things. But you didn’t. And you won’t. Why is that?
Is ignoring decades of research being scientific? Is asking for everything to be presented to you on a plate being sincere? Have you, yourself, got no responsibility to attempt to understand the work that has already been done?
Are you happy just listening to those whose opinion you already agree with and ignoring the thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of published works that disagree with you?
Are you being scientific? Are you looking at all the data and research? Or are you picking and choosing depending on your bias?
Origenes: “starting with a bacterium, you claim that it easy to make e.g. a bat….”
JVL: “Not easy, it takes many, many, many, many, many generations. AND you don’t know ahead of time what you’re going to get.”
Yeah we do know what we are going to get, we are going to get more bacteria. And the burden is on you to “scientifically’ prove that is not the case, not just blow hot air and claim otherwise as you are currently doing.
Jerry: is this projection?
No, Jerry, it’s not. Alan Fox is responding based on known and accepted and widely held views and results. You sound like you’re just making up stuff that you think sound reasonable but isn’t actually supported.
Everything I said is logical and based on evidence.
Sadly, that is not the case.
I suggest that you explain how biological evolution works.
Since you’ve been commenting here for a long time you have heard that explanation over and over and over and over and over again. If you still don’t ‘get it’ then why should we bother to repeat it again?
You will be the first one ever to do so. No links or references for this because we are just dealing with how.
It’s really simple. And clear. Maybe you just don’t get it?
By the way why don’t you define words like “niche” and “fitter” as part of this.
Because those are well understood in the biological sciences. Which you should know IF you had actually spent time reading the supporting papers and publications and books. It’s not hard to find such things. Have you even tried?
Are you a fool or a knave Jerry? You say you’re really intelligent (a maths genius) but you seem incapable of understanding some basic biological reasoning which has been made for a century and a half. I’m not saying agree with it but just to understand the argument. Not that you’re alone on this site: many, many people can’t seem to actually address the real points.
A – a niche, whatever that is.
B – a collection of entities that compose niche A. These could be life forms sometimes thousands, various substrates such as minerals and other compounds, various environmental entities such as climate and geochemical formations. Maybe other variables.
B is stable though the alleles of the life forms in A vary somewhat over time. Some of the resources, minerals composition change or get converted to other compounds over time but not dramatically. The climate changes somewhat back and forth but remains essentially the same. This is normal for most of out planet.
Now B changes dramatically. Maybe a new life form enters A. Or the climate changes or a compound becomes scarce or a new compound becomes more abundant. There will be two outcomes, one possibility is a new equilibrium. The end point will be a new distribution of the percentage of everything, alleles, mineral etc.. This end point will be called the natural selection of each entity since each survived the change.
We call B an ecology and over time it changes.
We tend to use natural selection to refer to just one species but in fact thousands of species’ allele distributions could change. It could even refer to resource changes due to the new range of stability of all the entities. I could even imagine environmental changes happening due to the distribution changes. For example, there was a story of river changes due to new wildlife patterns caused by the introduction of a new species.
So natural selection is just what happens, the gene/allele distribution for each species, the chemical compounds distribution and the geographical environment.
Or the change in one species, say X1, could eliminate one of the others variables, say Y1, because X1 is too successful due to a change. And this variable, Y1, which is eliminated is necessary for X1 to exist. Thus X1 then becomes eliminated because it is too successful. So both X1 is eliminated as well as Y1.
So which is more likely, X1 to get fitter and fitter and developing new characteristics and leaving more and more offspring without any problem finding enough Y1 or equivalent things to Y1 in the ecology.
Or eventually X1 will run out of Y1 or equivalents and become extinct.
This natural process is happening to every X and Y in the ecology. How is there a possibility for any entity to develop, superior characteristics through change and not become extinct?
That is the question I am posing. Maybe the wording could be better.
I have read dozens of books by those who espouse natural Evolution and nowhere in these books is the answer to the question I am posing.
Nor has anyone on this site done so and we have had evolutionary biologists here in the past.
Bornagain77: Yeah we do know what we are going to get, we are going to get more bacteria. And the burden is on you to “scientifically’ prove that is not the case, not just blow hot air and claim otherwise as you are currently doing.
Once again you have shown your inability to reason scientifically.
Nothing in science is ‘proven’. You’ve been told this over and over and over again but you just can’t get that through your head.
And, as most of the planet knows, the case for unguided evolution has been made over and over and over and over again in paper after paper, journal after journal, book after book. Why don’t you actually try and address the actual claims being made instead of saying the case hasn’t even been argued?
AND then we get your usual Gish-gallop of links to things, some are YouTube videos, some are to articles not research papers, some are to evolution-denying websites. AND some are misinterpretations of actual work that has been done because you (or someone else) has fixated on a word or phrase which you think ‘disproves’ unguided evolution. But, again, you haven’t got the academic background to evaluate the work you cite. You don’t actually understand the research or its implications. You’ve made that clear over and over and over again over years and years and years.
IF you really cared about ID as a valid scientific field of endeavour then why aren’t you arguing for there to be a research institute, a journal, some paid researchers working on ID. Don’t tell me there isn’t any money, the church has a lot more money than academia. There’s plenty of money. Why aren’t you pushing for some of it to be spent on ID research?
Jerry: That is the question I am posing.
And you haven’t bothered to read up on the many, many, many publications and books and research which discuss such things?
Really?
For someone who portrays themself as being very smart you don’t seem to get a lot of things.
Maybe you should do some homework and then ask some questions.
to become superior
Superior by what definition?
You clearly haven’t bothered to do any work whatsoever to learn what is already known in the field.
You want me or Alan Fox to summarise books and books of information and mathematical models because you can’t be bothered to go find out yourself?
Do some work. Do some reading. Spend some time actually trying to find out.
So JVL, instead of presenting any scientific evidence to counter the scientific evidence that I presented to you, you want to lecture me on being scientific? JVL, I have news for you, you wouldn’t know real science if it bit you on the rear end! Unbridled Hubris, thy name is JVL.
Bornagain77: instead of presenting any scientific evidence to counter the scientific evidence that I presented to you, you want to lecture me on being scientific?
The evidence for unguided evolution is present in hundreds if not thousands of books, thousands if not hundreds of thousands of research papers and journals articles. If you want to find it you can. You can pretend that nothing exists if it’s not dolled out here to you personally (and, to be fair, a lot of that has been done) but that doesn’t mean it’s not out there.
JVL, I have news for you, you wouldn’t know real science if it bit you on the rear end!
Really? Based on what? What academic or publication criteria are you using? What experimental experience are you drawing upon? How many papers have your authored or published?
Shall we test your mathematical ability? Shall we see if you understand even a basic probability argument? Surely someone who ‘knows science’ would be able to answer some simple probability questions . . .
Try this: if you flip a fair coin and toss a fair 6-sided die what is the probability you’ll end up with a head AND a prime number? Likewise, what is the probability you’ll end up with a head OR a prime number? And then: what is the probability you’ll end up with a prime number given a head?
Take your time. Five minutes should be enough.
~ Question about Natural Elimination ~
Suppose a start with species A in niche 1. Next, a miracle happens: after a few rounds of successful random mutations, we have species A, B, C, and D in niche 1.
*Enter natural elimination*: a struggle for life ensues and only species C survives and fills niche 1.
IOW “natural selection” favors species C and the others go extinct.
Now here is my question to Darwinians:
How does the elimination of species A, B, and D assist evolution in finding biological information?
JVL at 143,
Ba77 has done a fine job of refuting unguided evolution. Seeing you deny it so many times confirms what I believe to be the primary use of unguided evolution today: to promote atheism. To promote a world that was not designed but which stumbled into something called human beings. All those books, all those journals which you say support unguided evolution are part of the reaction against a society that has long recognized God, not unguided evolution, as the Creator. The sheer amount of “upending” and “unexpected” and “earlier than thought” indicates a lack of correct thinking. Guesswork about what it all means. That’s not science, as Ba77 has pointed out on numerous occasions.
In conclusion, what unguided evolution amounts to is a worldview promoted by those who want God out of the picture. Out of their lives and out of society in general.
I have been going back on comments from 15-18 years ago to look at what was said.
Recently I found one referring to someone named Elliot Sober who is a philosopher of science. So I decided to look him up in UD and Evolutionary News. Here is one quote about him by Casey Luskin
By the way Sober tries to disprove ID by appealing to the necessity of disproving the alternatives. It gets facial when the universe is considered.
Sober wrote a short book in 2017 trying to disprove ID.
Bornagain77: Ba77 has done a fine job of refuting unguided evolution.
Other opinions are available.
Seeing you deny it so many times confirms what I believe to be the primary use of unguided evolution today: to promote atheism.
Amazing logic!
All those books, all those journals which you say support unguided evolution are part of the reaction against a society that has long recognized God, not unguided evolution, as the Creator.
I guess that means you didn’t understand the scientific arguments either.
The sheer amount of “upending” and “unexpected” and “earlier than thought” indicates a lack of correct thinking.
I guess you don’t think views and opinions should be updated when new evidence or data is found.
Guesswork about what it all means. That’s not science, as Ba77 has pointed out on numerous occasions.
What it all means? Really? Knowing that the Earth revolves around the Sun . . . what does that mean? Knowing that objects on Earth accelerate towards the centre of the Earth at (about) 9.8m/sec^2 . . . what does that mean? What’s wrong with knowing the truth?
In conclusion, what unguided evolution amounts to is a worldview promoted by those who want God out of the picture. Out of their lives and out of society in general.
So, you’re going to continue to deny scientific ‘truth’ because you think it’s atheistic? Wow. Might I suggest that there is a possibility that you don’t really understand God or the actual message? I mean, if theism isn’t tied to what is true then what’s the point?
If you have to deny reality in order to believe in God then . . .
When Bornagain77 can answer my very basic probability questions I’ll talk to him again. Can you answer them?
JVL continues his bluffing and blustering. The evidence he needs to prove his case is sorely missing from his posts, and there is a good reason for that. He never cites any actual scientific evidence because he has none. PERIOD! There is ZERO real-time scientific evidence that Darwinian processes can create JUST one molecular machine. For instance, the bacterial flagellum, an ID icon, remains unrefuted
JVL never cites any evidence and he just keeps bluffing and blustering, and keeps claiming that there are “hundreds if not thousands of books, thousands if not hundreds of thousands of research papers and journals articles. If you want to find it you can.”
Yet none of those hundreds and thousands of papers provide any real-time evidence for Darwinian processes creating even a single molecular machine. It is all ‘narrative gloss’ and ‘just-so story telling’.
As the late Philip Skell observed, evolution functions more as a ‘narrative gloss’ in peer-reviewed literature rather than as a fruitful heuristic.
In fact, as the late Dr. Skell alluded to, you can readily jettison the ‘narrative gloss’ of evolutionary language from peer-reviewed papers and not negatively effect the actual science of the papers:
Whereas, on the other hand, teleological language cannot be sacrificed from research papers without negatively effecting the research of the papers.
J.B.S. Haldane himself admitted as much, “Teleology is like a mistress to the biologist; he dare not be seen with her in public but cannot live without her.”
In the following article, Stephen Talbott challenges Darwinists to, “pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness(i.e. teleology)”
Denis Noble also notes that “it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language”.
This working biologist agrees with Talbott and Noble’s assessment and states, “in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them.”
And as the following 2020 article pointed out, “teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological.”
In short, teleological, i.e. designed based, language is found to be absolutely essential for doing biological research, whereas ‘evolutionary language’ is found to be a superficial ‘narrative gloss’ that can be readily stripped away from the research papers without negatively effecting the actual science in the papers.
In summary, the very words that Darwinists themselves are forced to use when they are describing their biological research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
Supplementtal notes:
Origenes: How does the elimination of species A, B, and D assist evolution in finding biological information?
Once again, you clearly, after years and years and years of having things explained to you, still don’t understand what unguided evolutionary theory is saying. Amazing. I mean, that takes real effort. You’d have to work at that.
How do I know you still don’t get it? You said:
Next, a miracle happens
I rest my case.
Jerry: It gets facial when the universe is considered.
I’m not sure this is the forum for discussing facials.
Bornagain77:
Can you answer my very basic probability questions? Yes or no?
The evidence he needs to prove his case is sorely missing from his posts, and there is a good reason for that. He never cites any actual scientific evidence because he has none. PERIOD!
Despite decades and decades of scientific research: papers, articles, books, research etc to the contrary. Even when some of that work has been spoon-fed to Bornagain77 he has denied it. That is the sign of a denier. It’s not about the evidence; it’s about coming to a particular conclusion.
Let’s see if he can answer my extremely basic probability questions.
JVL can you ever present any actual scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution creating even a single molecular machine? Yes or no. Or all we ever going to get from you is bluffing and blustering with a good amount of chest thumping thrown in? 🙂
Despite your exalted opinion of yourself, you are shallow and pathetic!
Bornagain77:
I guess you can’t answer my extremely basic probability questions. You haven’t even tried. What that tells me is that you can’t grasp many of the probabilistic arguments made in many of the papers you cite. That means you can’t evaluate whether they make sense or not. That means you are accepting or denying the arguments based on their conclusion and how closely it matches with your pre-held beliefs.
If you can’t actually understand arguments you put forward as being definitive what are you? A noisy gong? A clanging cymbal?
You have seen the evidence and arguments and logic for unguided evolutionary theory. It has been presented to you over and over and over and over again. Yet you say you haven’t seen it. You are a knave or a fool. Which is it?
But, let’s start with those probability questions I asked. Questions which are freshman level. Can you answer them: yes or no? At least answer that question.
Despite your exalted opinion of yourself, you are shallow and pathetic!
Can you answer my basic probability questions: yes or no?
Projection, thy name is JVL.
Origenes: Projection, thy name is JVL.
Can you answer my basic probability questions? Or are you just another poser? Someone who thinks they know science but, actually, hasn’t got the ability to figure out what is correct and what isn’t?
JVL bluffs and blusters again and is STILL sorely lacking on any real time empirical evidence for Darwinian processes creating even a single molecular machine. It should be easy for him, He keeps referencing hundreds and thousands of papers that prove Darwinian evolution can create molecular machines. Where are they?
JVL, instead of presenting any real-time evidence that Darwinian processes can create even a single molecular machine, disingenuously tries to change the subject and wants me to answer “basic probability questions”.
Yet, that JVL would try to change the subject from real-time empirical evidence to questions about mathematical probability is an ironic and self-defeating thing for JVL to try to do. (as disingenuous as it was for him to try to change the subject)
As Wolfgang Pauli noted, “(Darwinists) Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”
Moreover, besides Darwinists using “the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle’” mathematics itself is profoundly immaterial in its foundational essence and cannot possibly be reduced to the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution.
In fact, Alfred Russel Wallace himself, co-discover of natural selection, held that our ability to do mathematics was proof, in and of itself, for the existence of the human soul. Specifically he stated, “Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.”
So thus, JVL may disingenuously try to change the subject from empirical evidence and appeal to questions about mathematical probability, but the fact of the matter is mathematical probability, and even the existence of immaterial mathematics in and of itself, is certainly no friend to his Darwinian materialism.
Bornagain77: Yet, that JVL would try to change the subject from real-time empirical evidence to questions about mathematical probability is an ironic and self-defeating thing for JVL to try to do.
There’s a clear point I’m making: if you cannot show basic competence in probability then it’s clear you cannot possibly evaluate probabilistic arguments as correct or not. If you cannot accurately evaluate probabilistic arguments then many of the arguments you link to are actually beyond your ability to evaluate. Which means you are taking them on faith. Which means you are not making a scientific argument; you are making a faith argument.
I don’t have a problem with a faith-based argument, as long as it’s acknowledged as such. As long as it’s honest and clear.
Moreover, besides Darwinists using “the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle’” mathematics itself is profoundly immaterial in its foundational essence and can not possibly be reduced to the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution.
Thanks for making it even clearer: you cannot do basic mathematics. You haven’t even got the sheer basic honest to admit you can’t answer my questions. Who covers up their failings? Who tries to sidestep things they profess to know about but actually haven’t got a clue? Who does something like that? An honest and sincere person? Someone who is humble and penitent? Or is that the sign of someone who is desperately trying to avoid admitting they haven’t got a clue?
Can you answer my very basic probability questions? Yes or no? Please don’t bother with another copy-and-paste diatribe full of excerpts which attempt to deflect attention away from my questions. Just answer them. If you can. For once try and be honest.
Clearly you agree with me that not knowing the answers to my basic probability queries casts aspersions on you interpretation of any and all probabilistic arguments or you wouldn’t be desperately trying to sideline the conversation. But that doesn’t explain why you are choosing not to be honest and straightforward. What does denying the truth get you? Who is going to give you a pat on the back for avoiding being honest? What reward are you hoping for that says: well done, you lied by omission? Is that the kind of example you want to be known for? Really?
So, again, can you answer my basic probability questions, yes or no?
In fact, Alfred Russel Wallace himself, co-discover of natural selection, held that our ability to do mathematics was proof, in and of itself, for the existence of the human soul.
But you don’t have the ability to do mathematics do you? Does that mean you haven’t got a soul?
So JVL desperately tries once again to deflect from his sheer lack of real time empirical evidence and wants me to chase his tail around on basic probability questions.
To paraphrase JVL, “Can you present any real time evidence for Darwinian processes creating a single molecular machine? Yes or no? Please don’t bother with another diatribe on basic mathematical probability, full of ad hominems, which attempt to deflect attention away from my questions about real-time empirical evidence. Just present the real time evidence. If you can. For once try and be honest.”
“A noisy gong, A clanging cymbal, thy name is JVL.”
Bornagain77:
Can you answer my elementary probability questions or not? Yes or no?
(Clearly the answer is no, you cannot answer them but I am trying to give you the chance to be honest and sincere. So far, you have chosen to be deceptive and insincere. I don’t know what that means in your theology but I can’t imagine it is good.)
JVL, Can you present any real-time evidence for Darwinian processes creating a single molecular machine or not? Yes or no?
(Clearly the answer is no, you cannot present any real-time evidence but I am trying to give you the chance to be honest and sincere. So far, you have chosen to be deceptive and insincere. I don’t know what that means for your personal integrity but I can’t imagine it is good.)
Bornagain77: Can you present any real-time evidence or not? Yes or no?
It has been presented to you over and over and over again. Additionally you can find it for yourself; you don’t even have to spend any money to find it. But every time it has been presented to you you deny it. Every single time.
So, again, can you answer my simple, basic, elementary probability questions? Yes or no?
JVL, you keep claiming that you got real time empirical evidence for Darwinian processes creating molecular machines. Where is it? For crying out loud, you say you got hundreds and thousands of studies proving that Darwinian processes can create molecule machines. Where are they? Nobody, save for die-hard Darwinists, seems to know where these hundreds and thousands of studies actually are.
OK, though it has been done before, many times. Where do you think I found out about the process?
People have been
This would then require several examples that are well documented. You can use links for this.
By the way why don’t you define words like “niche” and “fitter” as part of this. Both are rather nebulous words. Anything could be a niche and fitter could mean lots of things.
OK. I’ll have a go. I’ll write something but post it elsewhere so I retain a record. I don’t have 100% confidence in this site. Of course, I can post a copy as a comment here.
Charles Darwin wasn’t the first to suspect common descent.
Challenge accepted.
Why don’t you have a go at an explanation of “Intelligent Design” as it pertains to what we observe of life on this planet? Are you up for that?
I’ll need a little time as real life commitments have precedence.
Game over.
Bornagain77: Darwinian processes creating molecular machines
Please be more specific: what particular transition are you too lazy to attempt to look up yourself that you like to know about? Go on, pick a particular step.
(Not forgetting that you still haven’t even admitted you can’t do the basic probability questions I put to you. What kind of person thinks that ignoring their own ignorance is a virtue?)
JVL, out of supposedly hundreds and thousands of studies demonstrating the real-time origin of molecular machines, still provides no real time evidence for Darwinian processes creating a single molecular machine.
I guess JVL’s real-time empirical evidence must have be locked away in Capone’s vault. 🙂
Probability is no friend of Darwinian evolution.
First off, Darwinists never had, and still have no, mathematical basis for their theory
As referenced previously, Wolfgang Pauli himself noted that “(Darwinists) Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”
That Darwinists don’t use realistic ‘estimations of a mathematically defined probability’ is made evident by the fact that Darwinists ignore, and/or rationalize away, any and all real world probability estimates that go against their theory.
Realistic probability estimates for the primordial earth generating a single functional protein, and for the origin of life itself, are even more prohibitive for Darwinists,
In fact, I hold that Stephen Meyer’s one in 10 to the 41,000th power estimate for the origin of a simple cell, as prohibitive as that is for Darwinists, is still far too generous to Darwinists.
Professor Harold Morowitz shows the Origin of Life ‘problem’ escalates dramatically when working from a thermodynamic perspective:
Also of interest is the information content that is found to be in a ‘simple’ cell when working from the thermodynamic perspective:
,,, Which is the equivalent of about 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. ‘In comparison,,, the largest libraries in the world,, have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.”
Darwinists try to claim that this tremendous thermodynamic hurdle presents no problem to their theory since the earth is a ‘open system’. Yet, as Brian Miller pointed out, regardless of the fact that the earth is an open system, “No system without assistance ever moves both toward lower entropy and higher energy which is required for the formation of a cell.”
In short, it is only by intelligence imparting immaterial information into a system that it is thermodynamically possible to move a system towards life.
As the following 2010 experimental realization of Maxwell’s demon thought experiment demonstrated, it is knowledge of a particle’s location and/or position that converts information into energy.
And as the following 2010 article stated about the preceding experiment, “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,”
In short, it is immaterial information that is imparted by an Intelligence into a system that allows a system to be in a state that is far from thermodynamic equilibrium, i.e. that allows life to be in a state of “lower entropy and higher energy” at the same time.
As Andy McIntosh, professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory at the University of Leeds, stated, “Information has its definition outside the matter and energy on which it sits, and furthermore constrains it (the polymers of life) to operate in a highly non-equilibrium thermodynamic environment. This proposal resolves the thermodynamic issues and invokes the correct paradigm for understanding the vital area of thermodynamic/organisational interactions,”
Moreover, classical sequential information, (such as is encoded on DNA), is shown to be a subset of quantum, (i.e. positional), information by the following method.
In the following 2011 paper, “researchers ,,, show that when the bits (in a computer) to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,, In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that (in quantum information theory) an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer.”
As well, and as the following 2017 article states: James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,,
quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,,
Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
These experiments go to the heart of the Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design debate and completely blow the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, (presuppositions about immaterial information being merely ’emergent’ from some material basis), out of the water.
In other words, directly contrary to Darwinian presuppositions, immaterial information, particularly ‘positional quantum information’, is now experimentally shown to be its own distinct physical entity that is a product of an ‘observer who describes the system’. And although it can interact with matter and energy, (interact in a ‘top-down’ manner with matter and energy; see George Ellis ‘Recognizing Top Down Causation’), it is still shown to be its own independent entity that is separate from matter and energy and, moreover, this immaterial information has a quote unquote ‘thermodynamic content’ that can be physically measured.
In short, Intelligent Design, and a direct inference to an ‘outside Intelligence’ that is necessary to explain why life is so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium, has, for all intents and purposes, achieved experimental confirmation via these recent experimental realizations of the Maxwell demon thought experiment.
i.e. Where did the massive amount of 10^12 bits come from that are necessary to explain the Origin of Life? From the very best our science can tell us, an outside intelligence necessarily imparted that massive amount of information, i.e. 10^12 bits, into a system in order to ‘thermodynamically’ explain the Origin of Life. Naturalistic explanations, as far as thermodynamics itself is concerned, simply are a non-starter as to ever providing an adequate explanation for the Origin of Life.
Bornagain77: out of supposedly hundreds and thousands of studies demonstrating the real-time origin of molecular machines, still provides no real time evidence for Darwinian processes creating a single molecular machine.
Oh, so your asking for evidence is just you being disingenuous since you’ve already made up your mind and are, therefore, closed to any new data or research. I get it now.
But we can keep seeing if you will have the guts to admit you can’t do my basic probability exercises.
Probability is no friend of Darwinian evolution.
How would you know? You can’t even do basic, simple problems. Clearly you’re just accepting what other people say without the ability to critically consider their arguments.
That Darwinists don’t use realistic ‘estimations of a mathematically defined probability’ is made evident by the fact that Darwinists ignore, and/or rationalize away, any and all all real world probability estimates that go against their theory.
Again, you, yourself are in no position to judge such things. You just follow around others and blindly accept what they tell you. Very scientific.
Realistic probability estimates for the primordial earth generating a single functional protein, and for the origin of life itself, are even more prohibitive for Darwinists,
Again, who are you to judge based on your lack of knowledge and ability?
In fact, I hold that Stephen Meyer’s one in 10 to the 41,000th power estimate for the origin of a simple cell, as prohibitive as that is for Darwinists, to be far too generous.
Uh huh. Even I can see the complete mathematical stupidity of the argument you posted just before this comment.
I tell you what: you tell me whether or not you can do the simple probability problems I posed then we can talk some more.
I guess JVL real time evidence for Darwinian processes creating molecular machines, i.e. hundreds and thousands of papers, has gone the way of the Loch Ness monster. i.e. Although there are allegedly hundreds and thousands of sightings of this supposed real-time evidence, apparently this real-time evidence simply doesn’t exist in the real world but only exists in the imagination of Darwinists.
JVL, 156:
Strawman alert.
After over a decade, surely you know that the pivotal question in regards to functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information is blind needle in haystack search challenge posed by the available search resources relative to the configuration space. For the sol system, 500 bits is a good threshold, given 3.27*10^150 possibilities from 000 . . . 0 to 111 . . . 1 vs say 10^57 atoms, 10^17 s and a rate of plausible chemical level action of 10^13/s. This rounds down to negligible search, settled before one enters debates over probability calculations. For the observed cosmos — the only actually observed cosmos, go to 10^80 atoms and a threshold of 1,000 bits, i.e. 1.07*10^301 configurations.
We know on trillions of observations, that the only observed source for such FSCO/I is intelligently directed configuration. Your objections are cases in point. Yes, FSCO/I is readily observable and is seen to come from intelligent design in every observed case. Precisely what the search challenge points to.
Of course, one may invite that physics and chemistry is heavily biased towards life so we have a loaded search. In that case, all that would be displaced, would be the stage at which design was inserted, cosmological fine tuning. However, this is a hypothetical: no one has observed that physics and chemistry — though they enable such — have cell based aqueous medium, terrestrial planet life written into them.
So, trying to debate details of probability calculation is besides the main point. Especially, if that is going to be used to pretend that search challenge is not a pivotal issue.
Not that such errors of reasoning have given pause to too many objectors to the design inference.
KF
JVL, disingenuously keeps trying to change the subject from his lack of real-time empirical evidence for Darwinian processes creating a single molecular machine to my proficiency in math. And although I referenced several people with proficiency in probability calculations, (and can reference several more), JVL keeps saying that I am personally in no position to judge whether their probability calculations accurately. (which begs the question, if I can’t judge basic probability accurately, then why should I trust JVLs understanding of probability over their understanding?)
Anyways I disagree with JVL. I hold that I, and all other humans, do have a good instinctual, even God given, grasp on the basics of probability. For instance, from my interactions with JVL thus far, I can accurately surmise that the probability of JVL ever being honest and admitting that he has no real-time evidence for Darwinian processes creating molecular machines is virtually nil. 🙂
JVL, kindly explain to us why you seem to infer that something fairly close to Bernoulli- Laplace indifference as a baseline across configs is not a useful first approximation for much of probability work? Indeed, my observation of expert elicitation [used here for volcano estimation . . . we are playing a grand, multi turn game with nature here], is based on modifying Bernoulli and in effect using Bayesian reasoning on conditionals. Starting with a darwin warm pond or the like, tell us why standard thermodynamic approaches are problematic, given that opening up a system adds energy to distribute thus multiplies states, i.e. typically increases entropy. It is coupled, directed, controlled energy inputs to guided work that constructs specific, highly contingent structures such as text strings, fishing reels and proteins. Now, explain to us that inviting the heavy front loading of physics and chem towards origin of cells, is not a strong design argument. And more. KF
PS try https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_indifference Notice, once we have good reason, we can shift weights across the span of possibilities, but that simply shows where we started from.
JVL @150
From the website of Berkeley:
“Simple” indeed, but it does not answer my specific question, so here it is again:
How does the elimination of variety (in this example green beetles) assist evolution in finding biological information?
In my understanding, elimination obviously does not help, instead “natural selection” hampers evolution to find biological information. Natural selection is in the business of destroying biological information.
🙂 The bias towards life of physics and chemistry is an undeniable fact . Nobody can deny that . They are the bricks of life but bricks themselves can’t build a room (as Alan Fox thinks)they need informational input delivered into a close and restrictive environment (room ,cell , body ) with functional instructions to adapt to a (limited)number of environmental good conditions or stressors.
Kairosfocus@174 and 176, I cringe every time I hear an IDist try to use probability or terms like “search”. It just demonstrates their complete ignorance of probability and how evolution work. Evolution has no goal or end in sight. As such, probability in the way it is used by IDists is erroneous.
For example. The probability that you exist is 1. And the probability that your parents would have kids would also be fairly high. But from the starting point of a few generations ago, what is the probability that “you” would exist? It is very close to zero. There are over 70 trillion different human genome possibilities. But given that our phenotype is affected by more than the genome, the probability of you existing through natural processes is far less that one in 70 trillion. Using ID logic, the most likely explanation is that you, as an individual, were specifically designed.
Kairosfocus writes:
Another misuse of probability. But, if you want to misuse probability, I am willing to play that game. There are trillions of examples of FSCO/I arising without intelligent intervention. Ponder that the next time the antibiotic you are prescribed does not irradicate your infection.
Bornagain77: I guess JVL real time evidence for Darwinian processes creating molecular machines, i.e. hundreds and thousands of papers, has gone the way of the Loch Ness monster.
I asked you to specify, narrow down your query to a smaller stage or step. Instead of doing that you indicated that you’ve already made up your mind and would not consider anything presented to you. So, why should I bother?
disingenuously keeps trying to change the subject from his lack of real-time empirical evidence for Darwinian processes creating a single molecular machine to my proficiency in math.
Ha ha ha ha ha!! I did ask you my question first as is blatantly obvious. It’s you who is trying to deflect attention, not me.
And although I referenced several people with proficiency in probability calculations, (and can reference several more), JVL keeps saying that I am personally in no position to judge whether their probability calculations accurately. (which begs the question, if I can’t judge basic probability accurately, then why should I trust JVLs understanding of probability over their understanding?)
You don’t have to trust me but clearly, without the ability to judge, you have decided to trust some others. And why would that be? How can you pick who to trust if you don’t understand the math?
I hold that I, and all other humans, do have a good instinctual, even God given, grasp on the basics of probability
You have yet to exhibit such.
For instance, from my interactions with JVL thus far, I can accurately surmise that the probability of JVL ever being honest and admitting that he has no real-time evidence for Darwinian processes creating molecular machines is virtually nil.
I will ask you AGAIN: please narrow down your query to some part or step and we’ll see what I can find since you can’t be bothered to look since you’ve already made up your mind.
AND you still haven’t admitted you can’t solve my elementary probability questions. Ones that are at a high school level.
Kairosfocus: After over a decade, surely you know that the pivotal question in regards to functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information is blind needle in haystack search challenge posed by the available search resources relative to the configuration space.
Please, you know I have heard you say that over and over and over and over and over again. That’s not what I was talking about with Bornagain77 was it?
So, trying to debate details of probability calculation is besides the main point.
If someone who present probability arguments cannot actually demonstrate that they actually understand the mathematics involved then they clearly are just blindly accepting what someone else says. So, if I criticise the argument, point out where mathematical mistakes were made, I will be dismissed NOT because I made a bad argument but because the person I am presenting my argument to doesn’t grasp the necessary concepts. So, it’s perfectly reasonable to see if my debating opposite will even understand my point before I bother going into it.
kindly explain to us why you seem to infer that something fairly close to Bernoulli- Laplace indifference as a baseline across configs is not a useful first approximation for much of probability work?
Please be more specific and state when I did that and how my reasoning was incorrect IN THIS THREAD.
Origenes: How does the elimination of variety (in this example green beetles) assist evolution in finding biological information?
It’s a ridiculous question. Biological ‘success’ is not measured in bits of information. That is not the commodity at play. You ask it because you have the wrong base approach to the whole topic.
Also, you seem to think that ‘information’ once ‘destroyed’ can never be recreated. It’s a ludicrous assertion! AND, as I’ve already noted, the fact that after years and years and years you still have trouble grasping the real concepts is just astonishing.
I entirely agree with FP @ 179 and would also add that this concern with the creation or destruction of genetic information appears to be at odds with the conservation law of information proposed by William Dembski which implies that information can be neither created or destroyed.
This is nonsense.
The theory of Evolution does not say there is a specific goal but does say the stumbling through the combinations of possible combinations has led to the immense functional complexity we see. It is functional complexity that is subject of the probability argument. There isn’t enough time to find these functional complexities given the processes proposed.
So probability is absolutely a naturalized Evolution killer and appropriately used.
Haven’t a clue why this was brought up. This is just basic genetics and ID recognizes genetics as definitely happening.
JVL @
Perhaps, but I ask you to answer the question regardless of its quality.
Seversky at 184,
You have now entered the Useless Comment Zone. Information can be created. It does come from a person, a Creator. But it cannot be destroyed.
JVL STILL has yet to list ANY real-time empirical evidence for any molecular machine being created by Darwinian processes. What is the problem? He claims to have hundreds and/or thousands of papers that he can pick and choose from in order to prove that Darwinian processes can create molecular machines. Where are they? He claims he wants me to specify exactly what I want? I want real-time empirical evidence of Darwinian processes creating ANY molecular machine!
The fact is that JVL is flat out lying about having ANY real-time evidence for Darwinian processes creating even one molecular machine, (much less hundreds and/or thousands of papers demonstrating as such). and JVL simply refuses to honestly admit it. And he has been flat out lying about having any evidence ever since post 137 when I called his bluff on having any real-time evidence for bacteria producing anything other than more bacteria.
JVL wants to claim that I don’t have the capacity to understand the sheer mathematical impossibility of Darwinian evolution since I am not as proficient in mathematical probability as he supposedly is.
I have a question for JVL. Since JVL fancies himself to be so much more gifted at accurately surmising the impossibility/possibility of Darwinian evolution than Kairosfocus, Winston Ewert, William Dembski, Robert Marks, Murray Eden, Harold Horowitz, Wolfgang Paul, etc.. etc.., are, exactly where is his peer-reviewed work proving Darwinian evolution to be a mathematically feasible theory? After all, he has been fairly boastful as to his mastery of the subject. And at post 169 I did indeed list an Oxford job description where they were looking for someone, anyone, to straighten out the mathematical mess that lies at the foundation of Darwinian theory. So it is not as if there is not a big mathematical need for someone, anyone, of JVL’s supposed mathematical caliber to step forward and rescue Darwinists from all these nagging mathematical doubts about its feasibility that keep cropping up.
But anyways, JVL is only human, and I guess he is just too busy, so I guess JVL will just have to settle for trying to straighten out little ole me on mathematical probability first.
So JVL, in order to please you, and not offend your mathematical sensibilities any more, should I now send all my references on probability through you first before I post them?
How about this following one? Is this one OK with you if I post it? or does it also fail to meet with your ‘probabilistic’ approval? 🙂
in the following 2015 paper entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules” it was found that “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” and the researchers further commented that “finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
To drive this point home, this follow up 2018 article stated that “There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,”
Hopefully you can see JVL where someone who does not have your mathematical acumen, such as myself, could be led astray by “finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,, and “There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,”.
So JVL, perhaps after you straighten me, and everybody else here on UD, out on mathematical probability, you might find a little time to straighten those guys out on the mathematical probability of quantum critical proteins? Or is that beyond your job description of being a Darwinian troll?
Origenes: Perhaps, but I ask you to answer the question regardless of its quality.
Evolution doesn’t search for information. That’s not the goal. So, asking how this or that helps it find information is non-sensical.
You seem to think that, say, the ‘information’ in the human DNA had to exist before humans so that evolution could ‘find’ it. That just doesn’t make sense. That implies a target or a goal which is not the case.
Ford Prefect
There is no need for you to do so. Darwinians claim that unguided evolution is up to the job of producing the biological information we encounter in life. This claim can only be checked if evolution is modeled as a search for biological information.
JVL
That is good to know. Now, please, answer the question, so we can all be clear about the fact that natural selection hampers evolution in the context of finding biological information.
Ba77,
It should be obvious to anyone that the problem is not just JVL. The scientific community is thoroughly infected with the idea that unguided accidents led to the things they look at under microscopes and in fossils. The idea that what they see was engineered to be the way it is is clouded by this “narrative gloss” which amounts to a filter and camouflage. It amounts to a little voice that says: “No, this was not designed. This living thing came about through unguided processes. And woe unto anyone who even thinks otherwise.” And the evidence for that is people losing their positions and coming under fire for thinking exactly that.
Bornagain77: JVL STILL has yet to list ANY real-time empirical evidence for any molecular machine being created by Darwinian processes.
I will ask you FOR THE THIRD TIME: narrow down your question to a particular step or transition in whatever . . . progression you think there is no evidence of it having come around by natural processes.
I want real-time empirical evidence of Darwinian processes creating ANY molecular machine!
Pick one then.
JVL wants to claim that I don’t have the capacity to understand the sheer mathematical impossibility of Darwinian evolution since I am not as proficient in mathematical probability as he supposedly is.
I don’t think you understand the probabilistic arguments made. Whether or not the arguments are sensible is a different topic. First let’s see if you can grasp the math. Can you answer the extremely basic probability questions I asked, yes or no?
exactly where is his peer-reviewed work proving Darwinian evolution to be a mathematical feasible theory?
Others have done work along those lines when it’s necessary.
And at post 169 I did indeed listed an Oxford job description where they were looking for someone, anyone, to straighten out the mathematical mess that lies at the foundation of Darwinian theory.
Let’s be clear: you linked to an article by The Biologic Institute which posted excerpts from an Oxford job listing retrieved in 2011. That listing no longer exists so it’s impossible to even verify it existed or to put the excerpts in context. I can’t see it being that serious of a request since it’s clear that unguided evolutionary theory comprises a conglomeration of many processes and influences. I can’t imagine anyone thinking there would be a single, unifying theory thus my skepticism.
in the following 2015 paper entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules”
Amusingly enough, if you click on that link (which is to an article and NOT the actual research paper) and scroll down you will find an article entitled: A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing. Lovely.
Here’s the actual abstract from Quantum Criticality at the Origin of Life:
Gosh, that doesn’t sound quite so amazing as you seem to indicate. Do you know what electronic Hamiltonians are? Do you know about Random Matrix Theory? Multifractals? Anderson transitions? Does any of that make sense to you? Assuming you haven’t got a clue what any of that means what makes you think you can then say it’s evidence for design?
Hopefully you can see JVL where someone who does not have your mathematical acumen, such as myself, could be led astray by “finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,, and “There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,”.
Sure, it’s curious and interesting and hard to understand which is why people are doing research on the issue. (Again, you’re quoting from a blog post not the actual paper in question.) But they’re NOT throwing up their hands and deciding it all must be designed however. You choose to be ‘led astray’. For some reason.
So JVL, perhaps after you straighten me, and everybody else here on UD, out on mathematical probability, you might find a little time to straighten those guys out on the mathematical probability of quantum critical proteins? Or is that beyond your job description of being a Darwinian troll?
First you have to say whether or not you can even grasp the extremely easy problems I already gave you. Can you?
Origenes: That is good to know. Now, please, answer the question, so we can all be clear about the fact that natural selection hampers evolution in the context of finding biological information.
Too funny. You’ve already decided on your conclusion.
Unguided evolution has no problems at all finding new phenotypes to better exploit environmental niches. Evolution is the combination (partly) of inheritable variation and cumulative natural selection. To say that natural selection hampers a process it is itself a required part of is nonsensical. Unguided evolution wouldn’t happen at all without natural selection!
Here’s a question for you: what life form that could have been wildly successful are you thinking natural selection eliminated from consideration? You think it happened, give me an example.
Relatd: he scientific community is thoroughly infected with the idea that unguided accidents
No, inheritable variation and cumulative selection which is NOT random or accidental.
How many years have you been told that over and over and over again but you still intentionally (I guess) misrepresent the actual theory?
And the evidence for that is people losing their positions and coming under fire for thinking exactly that.
How many people actually lost their jobs? Go on. A thousand? A hundred? Ten? Less?
JVL @
If viable (capable of living) organisms are not eliminated — if there would be no natural selection — why exactly would unguided evolution not happen?
JVL, take your pick,
Remember JVL, real-time empirical evidence of a molecular machine being created in a lab, not the usual Darwinian ‘just so stories’ as to how molecular machines might have come about in the remote past.
JVL, unsurprisingly, hand waves off quantum critical proteins as if their extreme rarity is no big problem for Darwinian theory. Typical trollish behavior. A bunch of hand-waving, chest puffing, and flat out lying to cover his sheer lack of any real-time empirical evidence.. Nothing new.
JVL is a pathetic and shallow Darwinian troll.
JVL at 195,
Quit squirming around. So, you are saying human beings and apes did not have a common ancestor? Yes or no.
As far as people losing their jobs, are you in charge of the acceptable losses? Are you the one who gets to say: “Oh, 10 or a hundred, that’s nothing.”?
Origenes: If viable (capable of living) organisms are not eliminated — if there would be no natural selection — why exactly would unguided evolution not happen?
Unguided evolution is (partly) a combination of inheritable variation and cumulative natural selection. Natural selection includes embryos that die in the womb, ‘children’ that die young because they have a congenital problem. If unviable variations are not eliminated and passed on their genetics the population would be a huge mess of strong and weak variations all of which would be interbreeding. You’d never get a sufficient number of ‘strong’ variations to skew the entire population in a direction.
Evolution means change in allele frequency, without selection you’d get no measurable (i.e. average) change in allele frequency.
(Yes, I know there are also other kinds of selection and there is also genetic drift but, by most measures, natural selection seems to have much more effect.)
Natural selection is shown to be grossly inadequate as the supposed ‘designer substitute’:
Of related note:
Bornagain77: take your pick,
A lot of those are NOT molecular machines but here’s a bit on the origin of haemoglobin:
And, in case you want to categorise the above as another ‘just so story’ you would first have to consider all the research articles which verify or justify all the individual steps involved to check and see the lab work done to establish that step. Of course you’re not going to actually take the time to look at the research behind the history so I’m wondering what exactly you would consider as evidence of unguided processes having developed haemoglobin? You’re never, ever going to get a single lab-based experiment which can recreate millions of years of evolution. If you think that you should be able to get that then what you are really talking about is one of your miracles.
Remember JVL, real-time empirical evidence of a molecular machine being created in a lab, not the usual Darwinian ‘just so stories’ as to how molecular machines might have come about in the remote past.
This is the usual trope: if you can’t show a process that took millions of years happening in a few years then you’re wrong. What you can get is the individual steps being shown to happen but that would mean you’d have to first go and look at all the research behind the big picture. Which is why I asked you to narrow down your request. But you couldn’t handle that.
JVL, unsurprisingly, hand waves off quantum critical proteins as if their extreme rarity is no big problem for Darwinian theory. Typical trollish behavior. A bunch of hand-waving, chest puffing, and flat out lying to cover his sheer lack of any real-time empirical evidence.. Nothing new.
I just note that none of the researchers involved suggested that their results brought unguided evolution into question. And I did note that it was a question that should be and is being looked at.
Made any progress with those very simple probability questions I asked you? I could explain the technique for solving them to a 10-year old. (I know that because I have done so.)
Relatd: Quit squirming around. So, you are saying human beings and apes did not have a common ancestor? Yes or no.
Human beings and the other great apes definitely had a common ancestor.
As far as people losing their jobs, are you in charge of the acceptable losses? Are you the one who gets to say: “Oh, 10 or a hundred, that’s nothing.”?
How many people actually lost their jobs because they publicly stated a belief in intelligent design? If it was only one or two then it’s not as much a problem as it would be if it were a thousand. Last time someone gave me a list I admit there was one case which sounded pretty s***ty to me, that is it sounded like someone was really being discriminated against explicitly because of their support for ID. But, to be fair, a lot of the other famous cases aren’t because (like Dr Behe, who never lost his tenure by the way) the person in question publicly supported ID, it’s because the person in question did something else which made their position less solid. That is when they lost their job at all.
FP, you have invited cognitive dissonance, confession by projection analysis, and not to your advantage. Meanwhile, blind needle in haystack search is a readily understood though perhaps imperfect metaphor. Blind, here of course echoes one certain Clinton Richard Dawkins in the title of one of his popularising books: The Blind Watchmaker, a history you should have been aware of, even as it would be quite helpful if one and all were to ponder Paley’s ch 2 on the self replicating, time keeping watch, yes almost 50 years before Darwin wrote and just shy of 150 before von Neumann’s kinematic self replicator with its coded tape. Where, no one suggested by using such terms, that the evolutionary materialist concept of origin of life was purpose-driven, just the opposite, you are tilting at a strawman. The point is, in a darwin pond or the like, only blind physics and chemistry would be at work, through statistical thermodynamics constrained interactions. Such physical factors are consistent with the molecular nanotech of cell based life, as they are with advanced computers and a world of technology, but the FSCO/I in such is — just on blind search challenge — maximally implausible as the result of a blind process. KF
Bornagain77:
One of the links in your last copy-and-paste diatribe linked to a website called Creation Evolution headlines. That’s what you consider to be a scientific reference? Really?
Then there are the usual links to The Discovery Institute’s blog. Hardly an accepted, objective source.
Now, the other link is to a paper that I would accept as being roughly in support of your stance on design. If you just stick to things like that people will take you more seriously. That one IS problematic from my point of view. Find more things like that.
(I’m going to try and find the time to peruse that paper a bit more to make sure I understand it better. )
I will also note that the paper I’m taking seriously (The waiting time problem in a model hominin population: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/) includes the following statement at the end:
Reference 40 is to Marks II RJ, Behe MJ, Dembski WA, Gordon BL, Sanford JC, editors. Biological Information – New Perspectives. London: World Scientific; 2013. p. 1–563.
So, yes, I will take this work seriously as being (at least on the face of it) in support of ID. Again, that’s the kind of thing you should be bringing forward.
Sandy, yes, we already have serious fine tuning issues to get to a cosmos merely compatible with cell based life. The onward invitation that physics and chemistry acting in a darwin pond or the like, are even more biased towards spontaneous origin of cell based life, if it were demonstrated — and such simply is nowhere near likely! — would be a strong sign indeed that somebody monkeyed with physics and chemistry, echoing Sir Fred Hoyle. KF
JVL @
And we are discussing specifically the input of natural selection a.k.a. “natural elimination.”
This a common mistake, actually, this is not part of natural selection’s job description. “Death” takes care of organisms that are not viable. Note that the Berkeley example (#177) does not mention beetles with congenital conditions.
If so, why exactly would that be a problem for evolution?
FP, you seem unaware of the empirical foundations of science. When we have trillions of observations of a phenomenon and a consistent cause, that is a strong sign indeed. How many observations of FSCO/I arising by blind chance and/or blind mechanical necessity? Precisely, nil. Another clue. Then, as we observe the need for multiple, well matched parts, properly oriented, arranged and coupled to achieve configuration based function, that invites configuration space analysis, basically a cut down phase space. When complexity goes beyond 500 – 1,000 bits, the number of configs the atoms of the sol system or the cosmos could go through in 10^17 s, becomes a negligible fraction of the abstract space of possibilities. As a concrete comparison try a first example from L K Nash or Mandl in introducing statistical mechanics: 500 – 1,000 coins or paramagnetic domains, where we see readily 3.27*10^150 possibilities for the 500 case, where that includes every possible 500 bit string. So, every possible description is captured by the space. But, chance, random based processes or blind mechanical mechanisms or a blend of the two are maximally implausible to express FSCO/I, as the relative statistical weight of gibberish is utterly overwhelming. Not that such is likely to give you pause. Though, it should. KF
PS, Walker and Davies:
more on the anthropic principle from Lewis and Barnes https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/hitchhikers-guide-authors-puddle-argument-against-fine-tuning-and-a-response/#comment-729507
JVL, do you realise how callous and vindictive your dismissiveness to people who have indeed suffered academic persecution is? And, blame the victim games will not make it any better. I suggest, you would be well advised to rethink. KF
Origenes: And we are discussing the input of “natural selection”, that, in my view, should be named “natural elimination.”
What you call it doesn’t change what it does.
A common mistake, it is not part of natural selection’s job description.
Yes, it is part of natural selection.
Note that the Berkeley example does not mention beetles with congenital conditions.
Gosh, they left that out. It’s still part of natural selection: the favouring of more viable variation.
If so, why exactly would that be a problem?
Sigh. I thought you understood all this. You say you understand it. I guess you don’t.
If there is no selection then the allele frequency stays the same. It’s not a ‘problem’, it just means you’re not getting to significant shifts in phenotypes.
Kairosfocus: JVL, do you realise how callous and vindictive your dismissiveness to people who have indeed suffered academic persecution is?
How many? Like I said I saw one particular case I thought was pretty awful. But some have been self-inflicted.
And, let’s remember: Dr Behe has never had any major academic problems being a highly visible ID supporter. He hasn’t lost his tenure, he hasn’t faced any academic fallout.
Me: “Remember JVL, real-time empirical evidence of a molecular machine being created in a lab, not the usual Darwinian ‘just so stories’ as to how molecular machines might have come about in the remote past.”
JVL immediately links to an article telling a just-so story from “approximately 450–500 million years ago.”
Pathetic.
Why should I, or anyone else, take anything you have to say seriously? You have proven yourself to be untrustworthy, and deceitful, time and time again,
Bornagain77: JVL immediately links to an article telling a just-so story from “approximately 450–500 million years ago.”
As I said: you’ll have to look at the individual bits of research to see how each stage was verified in the lab. You won’t do that because you’re lazy.
Also, you seem to have missed or chosen to ignore, the fact that I upheld one of the bits of research you linked to as being significant and supportive of ID. So, thanks for that.
Seriously, I’m not sure why I bother. I guess you’re just a jerk.
Seeing as I have completely lost trust in anything you have to say, I really could care less which articles, or YouTube videos, you approve or disapprove that I link to.
JVL: “I guess you’re just a jerk.”
Pot calling kettle black?
I have a few choice words for you myself by decency restrains me to just calling you what you actually are. i.e. A pathetic and shallow Darwinian troll.
JVL, I do not need to repeat myself, especially in an era of the politically correct mob and censorship as growing, dangerous trends. Enough has long since been documented that the invitation to blaming the victim and shaming those who express concern becomes part of the problem. Actually, this is but one slice of a much wider and highly dangerous phenomenon in our time; the unravelling of the party line view on CV19 and how those who dissented were treated is an obvious comparison. KF
As to probability calculations and Darwinian evolution, here is an interesting article from ENV that just came out today,
Casey Luskin follows up on his article from yesterday,